For Official Use Only
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
FISCAL YEAR 2018
Justification of Appropriation
Estimates for the Committee
on Appropriations
May 2017
EPA-190-K-17-002
www. epa. gov/ocfo
-------
The EPA's Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the
environment. In carrying out its mission, the EPA works to ensure that all Americans are protected
from exposure to hazardous environmental risks where they live, learn, work, and enjoy their lives.
The agency guides national efforts to reduce environmental risks, based upon on-going research
and scientific analysis.
The agency's FY 2018 budget lays out a comprehensive back-to-basics and foundational strategy
to maintain core environmental protection with respect to statutory and regulatory obligations.
This budget provides the direction and resources to return the EPA to its core mission of protecting
human health and the environment. This can be accomplished by engaging with state, local, and
tribal partners to create and implement sensible regulations that also work to enhance economic
growth.
The EPA works to ensure our future generations will inherit a better and healthier environment.
Environmental stewardship while growing our economy is essential to the American way of life
and key to economic success and competitiveness. Regulation and policy will incorporate robust
input from the public through formal and informal mechanisms to seek full understanding of the
impacts of proposed policy on public health, the environment, the economy, jobs, families, and
our communities. We will build on progress to date by focusing on three core philosophies for
carrying out the EPA's mission:
• Rule of law: Administering the laws enacted by Congress and issuing environmental rules
tethered to those statutes, relying on agency expertise and experience to carry out
congressional direction and to ensure that policies and rules reflect common sense and
withstand legal scrutiny.
• Cooperative federalism: Recognizing the states and tribes, as applicable, as the primary
implementers and enforcers of our environmental laws and programs, and partnering with
them to engender trust and maximize environmental results to protect human health and
environment.
• Public participation: Fulfilling obligations to conduct open and transparent rulemaking
processes, engaging with and learning from the diverse views of the American public, and
addressing stakeholder input on the impacts of rules on families, jobs, and communities.
The EPA is proud to be a good steward of taxpayer resources and to deliver environmental
protection efficiently. To learn more about how the agency accomplishes its mission, including in-
formation on the organizational structure and regional offices, please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/.
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan
The EPA's FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Budget of $5,655 billion is $2.6 billion below
the FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution funding level for the EPA. This resource level and
the agency FTE level of 1 1,61 1 supports the agency's return to a focus on core statutory work and
recognizes the appropriate federal role in environmental protection. The budget addresses our
highest environmental priorities and refocuses efforts toward streamlining and reducing burden.
Responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs is returned to state and local
l
-------
entities, while federal funding supports priority national work. Funding is provided for
infrastructure and includes accelerating the pace of work in clean water and drinking water
infrastructure as well as at Brownfield and Superfund projects. Resources also are focused on
efforts to improve and protect air quality and to ensure the safety of chemicals. In FY 2018,
increased resources will support the agency's significant continuing and new responsibilities for
ensuring that new and existing chemicals are evaluated in a timely manner for introduction in
commerce and do not present unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. The agency
will work across all of our programs to unite varied interests and stakeholders to focus attention
and leverage federal, state, local, and non-governmental resources in a coordinated effort to
address the nation's greatest environmental challenges.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure of the nation is not limited to roads and bridges. The infrastructure needs of our
communities are broader and include making improvements to drinking water and waste water
infrastructure as well as cleaning up contaminated land. Focused efforts in the Superfund and
Brownfields programs can lead to tangible benefits for communities: a cleaner environment and
the redevelopment of sites back to beneficial use and new economic development.
A priority for the agency is modernizing the outdated water infrastructure on which the American
public depends. While most small systems consistently provide safe and reliable drinking water,
many small systems face challenges with aging infrastructure, increasing costs and decreasing
rates bases. Funding is provided for critical drinking and wastewater projects. These funding levels
support the President's commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow
states, municipalities, and private entities to finance high priority infrastructure investments. The
FY 2018 budget includes $2.3 billion for the State Revolving Funds and $20 million for the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Under WIFIA, the EPA could
potentially provide up to $1 billion in credit assistance, which, when combined with other funding
sources, would spur an estimated $2 billion in total infrastructure investment.1 This makes the
WIFIA program credit assistance a powerful new tool to help address a variety of existing and new
water infrastructure needs.
The cleanup and reuse of contaminated lands often can play a role in economically revitalizing a
community. The EPA's cleanup programs, including Superfund and Brownfields, protect human
health and the environment and also return sites to productive use, which is important to the
economic well-being of communities. Working collaboratively with partners across the country,
the EPA engages with communities in site cleanup decisions, fosters employment opportunities in
communities during and after remedy construction, promotes the redevelopment of blighted areas,
and protects human health and the environment. For example, Superfund properties are often
reused as commercial facilities, retail centers, government offices, residential areas, industrial and
manufacturing operations, and parks and recreational areas. The agency will look for program
efficiencies to increase the pace of projects and reduce often heavy administrative costs. The EPA
also invests in communities through Brownfields grants so communities can realize their own
visions for environmental health, economic growth, and job creation. As of April 2017, the
1 This approximation is based on notional calculations. Subsidy cost is determined on a loan-by-loan basis.
11
-------
Brownfield grants have led to over 67,000 acres of idle land made ready for productive use and
over 124,300 jobs and $23.6 billion leveraged.2
Improving Air Quality
In FY 2018, the EPA will perform activities in support of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and implementation of stationary source regulations, supporting state, local,
and tribal air quality programs. The agency will continue its Clean Air Act-mandated
responsibilities to administer the NAAQS and will provide a variety of technical assistance,
training, and information to support state clean air plans. The EPA will continue to prioritize CAA
and court-ordered actions. A focus will be placed on states achieving attainment, looking for
improved process for SIPS and implementation options. In addition, in FY 2018, the EPA will
continue to conduct risk assessments, to determine whether the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules appropriately protect public health.
In FY 2018, the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program will focus its
efforts on certification decisions. The agency will perform its compliance oversight functions on
priority matters, where there is evidence to suggest noncompliance, and conduct testing activities
for pre-certification confirmatory testing for emissions and fuel economy for passenger cars.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting
to inform the annual GHG inventory, a U.S. treaty obligation. The program will focus on
implementing already-finalized regulatory revisions across multiple sectors to address stakeholder
concerns associated with collection and potential release of data elements considered to be
sensitive business information; aligning the database management systems with those regulatory
revisions; and conducting a targeted Quality Assurance/Quality Control and verification process
through a combination of electronic checks, staff reviews, and follow-up with facilities when
necessary.
Air monitoring, which provides information to states used to develop clean air plans, for research,
and for the public, will continue to be a focus of the Administration. In FY 2018, the EPA will
provide grants to state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies to manage and implement
their air quality programs.
This budget supports implementation of the Energy Independence Executive Order which directs
agencies responsible for regulating domestic energy production to identify, and propose measures
to revise or rescind, regulatory barriers that impede progress towards energy independence.
Clean and Safe Water
The EPA will continue to partner with states, drinking water utilities, and other stakeholders to
identify and address current and potential sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts
are integral to the sustainable infrastructure efforts as source water protection can reduce the need
for additional drinking water treatment and associated costs. As progress has been made, work
remains for existing and emerging issues.
2 The EPA's ACRES database (https://cfext.epa.gov/acres/)
111
-------
The EPA will continue to provide scientific water quality criteria information, review and approve
state water quality standards, and review and approve state lists of impaired waters. In FY 2018,
the agency will continue to work with states and other partners on Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) as required by the Clean Water Act, as well as on other waterbody restoration plans for
listed impaired waterbodies. The EPA also will continue to implement and support core water
quality programs that control point-source discharges through permitting and pre-treatment
programs.
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
The EPA's toxics program will maintain its 'zero tolerance' goal for preventing the introduction
of unsafe new chemicals into commerce. In FY 2018, $65 million is requested for the TSCA
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program to support the agency's significant continuing and
new responsibilities for ensuring that chemicals in commerce do not present unreasonable risks to
human health or the environment. New chemicals will be evaluated and decisions will be based on
best available science and the weight of evidence. For chemicals in commerce, the EPA will
maintain an ambitious schedule for initiating and completing chemical risk evaluations and, where
risks are identified, for initiating and completing regulatory actions to address those risks. The
EPA also will implement the new mandates related to determinations on claims for confidentiality
for chemical identities.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue implementing TSCA activities not amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The agency also will provide firm and
individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint abatement and renovation and
repair efforts, as well as provide for the operation and maintenance of the online Federal Lead-
Based Paint program database (FLPP) that supports the processing of applications for training
providers, firms and individuals.
Identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the pesticides on which our society and
economy rely is integral to ensuring environmental and human safety. Chemical and biological
pesticides help meet national and global demands for food. They provide effective pest control for
homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, and drinking water treatment facilities,
while also controlling vectors of disease. The program ensures that the pesticides available in the
U.S. are safe when used as directed. In addition, the program is increasing the focus on pollinator
health, working with other federal partners, states, and private stakeholder groups to stem
pollinator declines and increase pollinator habitat.
In FY 2018, the EPA will invest resources to improve the compliance of pesticide registrations
with the Endangered Species Act. A portion of the funding also will ensure that pesticides are
correctly registered and applied in a manner that protects water quality.
Agency Strategic Plan and Performance Measures
The FY 2018 annual performance measures and provisional targets and the FY 2016 EPA Annual
Performance Report (APR), which includes performance measures and related information from
iv
-------
FY 2011 to FY 2017, are included in the appendixes to the FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and
Budget rhttps://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fv20181.
Eliminated Programs
Programs eliminated in the FY 2018 budget total $983 million. Details are found in
l"https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy20181. The Administration is committed to creating a
leaner, more accountable, less intrusive, and more effective Government. The FY 2018 budget
eliminates programs that are duplicative or those that can be absorbed into other programs or are
state and local responsibilities.
v
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 3
Budget Authority 3
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 4
1
-------
2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
Science & Technology
$763,829.4
$733,251.0
$450,812.0
Environmental Program & Management
$2,650,794.7
$2,630,269.0
$1,717,484.0
Inspector General
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
Building and Facilities
$44,550.4
$42,237.0
$39,553.0
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$18,682.8
$18,175.0
$15,717.0
Superfund Program
$1,131,787.6
$1,063,355.0
$745,728.0
IG Transfer
$8,975.4
$9,920.0
$3,900.0
S& T Transfer
$18,301.2
$18,814.0
$12,435.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund
$1,159,064.2
$1,092,089.0
$762,063.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$93,702.6
$91,766.0
$47,429.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$3,484,836.2
$3,611,473.0
$2,933,467.0
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
System Fund
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Fund
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
$8,258,172.8
$8,284,337.0
$6,024,000.0
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
$0.0
($40,000.0)
($369,000.0)
SUB-TOTAL, EPA (INCLUDING
RESCISSIONS)
$8,258,172.8
$8,244,337.0
$5,655,000.0
Hurricane Sandy Supplemental
$238.8
$0.0
$0.0
TOTAL, EPA
$8,258,411.6
$8,244,337.0
$5,655,000.0
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the
Superfund account.
3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
Science & Technology
2,106.5
2,198.2
1,484.7
Science and Tech. - Reim
0.5
1.5
0.0
Environmental Program & Management
9,270.8
9,767.2
7,320.8
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
35.8
0.0
0.0
Inspector General
225.0
268.0
201.4
Inland Oil Spill Programs
87.5
98.3
76.5
Oil Spill Response - Reim
5.6
0.0
0.0
Superfund Program
2,458.4
2,523.4
1,987.1
IG Transfer
46.1
50.1
12.0
S& T Transfer
68.9
71.6
49.3
Hazardous Substance Superfund
2,573.4
2,645.1
2,048.4
Superfund Reimbursables
101.4
17.5
11.7
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
50.4
54.1
40.7
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
5.7
0.0
0.0
WCF-Reimbursable
155.9
181.0
211.8
FIFRA
84.8
145.0
195.5
Pesticide Registration Fund
60.8
0.0
0.0
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
System Fund
7.6
7.9
7.9
Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Fund
0.0
12.0
12.0
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
2.6
0.0
0.0
Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource
Damage Assessment
2.5
0.0
0.0
SUB-TOTAL, EPA (INCLUDING
RESCISSIONS)
14,776.8
15,395.8
11,611.4
4
-------
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
Hurricane Sandy Supplemental
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL, EPA
14,776.8
15,395.8
11,611.4
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the
Superfund account.
5
-------
6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Overviews
Improving Air Quality 9
Ensuring Clean and Safe Water 12
Cleaning up Land 15
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals 20
Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance 25
7
-------
-------
Improving Air Quality
Introduction
As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA is dedicated to
improving the quality of the nation's air. To address these concerns, the agency works in
cooperation with states, tribes, and local governments to design and implement standards and
programs, and to share information. This cooperative federalism underpins all aspects of the
National Air Program. Strong cooperative partnerships are needed to make and sustain
improvements in air quality in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The National Air program will
focus on implementing core programs where a federal presence in required by statute. Regulation
and policy will be based upon the clear direction given by Congress in the Clean Air Act, follow
the rule of law, and incorporate robust input from the public. States and tribes intimately
understand their air quality problems and are therefore best positioned to develop solutions.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common air pollutants dropped an
average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by over 246 percent. Despite this
progress, in 2015, approximately 120 million people (about 40 percent of the U.S. population)
lived in counties with air that did not meet EPA's regulations for at least one pollutant.
The EPA's criteria pollutant programs are critical to continued progress in reducing public health
risks and improving the quality of the environment. However, listening to and working with states
to set and implement standards is key. The criteria pollutant program first sets National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) which are then implemented by the states who have primary
responsibility under the CAA for developing clean air plans. The EPA provides a variety of
technical assistance, training and information to support state clean air plans and air permits to
assist states with achieving attainment with air quality standards.
The air toxics program develops and implements national emission standards for stationary and
mobile sources and state/local air agency actions to address local air toxics problems in
communities. The EPA reviews air toxics emissions standards, required every eight years under
the Clean Air Act, to determine if additional emission control technologies exist and, if so, the
EPA proposes more effective emission control technologies based on these reviews.
The EPA also implements the U. S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires mandatory
greenhouse gas emissions reporting covering over 8,000 facilities from 41 large industrial source
categories in the U.S. The data are shared with industry stakeholders, state and local governments,
the research community, and the public to better understand emissions, inform opportunities, and
communicate progress of actions. They also inform the annual GHG Inventory, a U.S. treaty
obligation.
The EPA develops, implements, and ensures compliance with national emission standards to
reduce mobile source related air pollution from light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses, nonroad engines and vehicles, and from their fuels. The program also evaluates new
emission control technology and provides information to state, Tribal, and local air quality
managers on a variety of transportation programs. On March 15, 2017 the EPA and Department
9
-------
of Transportation announced that the EPA intends to reconsider the Final Determination, issued
on January 12, 2017, that recommended no change to the greenhouse gas standards for light duty
vehicles for model years 2022 - 2025. In order to provide the technical foundation for an agency
decision, the program will undertake an assessment of factors such as technological feasibility,
costs impacts, impacts on air quality and public health, and other relevant issues. The EPA must
make any modifications to the existing rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking, including
the issuing of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Final Rulemaking.
The agency also measures and monitors ambient radiation and radioactive materials and assesses
radioactive contamination in the environment. The agency supports federal radiological
emergency response and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
Highlights of the FY 2018 President's Budget:
FY 2018 resources include $447.7 million and 1,312.2 FTE to improve air quality. Highlights
include the following.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to perform key activities in support of the NAAQS and
implementation of stationary source regulations, supporting state, local, and tribal air quality
programs. The agency will continue its CAA-mandated responsibilities to administer the NAAQS
by reviewing state plans and decisions consistent with statutory obligations, taking federal
oversight actions such as approving State Implementation Plan / Tribal Implementation Plan
(SIP/TIP) submittals, and by developing regulations and policies to ensure continued health and
welfare protection during the transition between existing and new standards. The budget request
includes $100.4 million to provide federal support for state and local air quality management.
Air Toxics
The EPA will continue to prioritize CAA and court-ordered obligations. Section 112 of the CAA
requires that the emissions control bases for all Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards be reviewed and updated, as necessary, every eight years. In FY 2018, the EPA
will continue to conduct risk assessments, to determine whether the MACT rules appropriately
protect public health. The program will tier its work with an emphasis on meeting court ordered
deadlines to align with priorities and capacity.
Federal Vehicle and Fuel Standards and Certification Program
In FY 2018, the budget includes $76 million for the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification program, which will focus its efforts on certification decisions. The agency will
continue to perform its compliance oversight functions on priority matters, where there is evidence
to suggest noncompliance. The EPA will continue to conduct testing activities for pre-certification
confirmatory testing for emissions and fuel economy for passenger cars. In FY 2018, the EPA
anticipates reviewing and approving about 5,000 vehicle and engine emissions certification
10
-------
requests, including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty diesel engines, nonroad engines, marine
engines, locomotives, and others.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
In FY 2018, the budget provides for $8.5 million to continue to implement the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program. The program focus will include:
Implementing already-finalized regulatory revisions across multiple sectors to address
stakeholder concerns associated with collection and potential release of data elements
considered to be sensitive business information;
Aligning the database management systems with those regulatory revisions; and
Conducting a targeted Quality Assurance/Quality Control and verification process through
a combination of electronic checks, staff reviews, and follow-up with facilities when
necessary.
Radiation
In FY 2018, the EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) will maintain essential
readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the
National Response Framework (NRF) and National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA will design essential training and exercises to enhance the
RERT's ability to fulfill the EPA's responsibilities and improve overall radiation response
preparedness. The agency will continue to operate RadNet, the agency's fixed ambient
environmental radiation monitoring network for the U.S
Grants for State, Local and Tribal Air Quality Management
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide grants to state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies to
manage and implement their air quality programs. Air monitoring, which provides information to
states used to develop clean air plans, for research, and for the public, will continue to be a focus
of the Administration. The budget includes $168.4 million in grants to states, localities and tribes
to support air quality management work. Community scale air toxics monitoring will be funded
by states and communities.
Research
The funding request of $30.6 million for Air and Energy (A&E) research program will support
five related topic areas that include research projects that support the EPA's mission to protect
human health and the environment, fulfill the agency's legislative mandates, and advance cross-
agency priorities. The A&E program will work to measure progress toward environmental health
goals, and translate research results to inform communities and individuals about measures to
reduce impacts of air pollution. In addition, research personnel will analyze existing research data
and publish scientific journal articles to disseminate findings associated with these data. The A&E
research program relies on successful partnerships with other EPA research programs, offices,
academic and industry researchers, state, local and private sector organizations, as well as key
federal agencies.
11
-------
Ensuring Clean and Safe Water
Introduction
Protecting the nation's water from pollution and contaminants relies on cooperation between the
EPA, states and tribes. This cooperative federalism guides and underpins all aspects of the National
Water Program. Strong partnerships between states, tribes, and the EPA are needed to make and
sustain improvements in water quality. States and tribes intimately understand their water quality
problems and are therefore best positioned to develop localized solutions to protect their waters.
The National Water Program will focus on implementing core programs where a federal presence
is required by the statute. The decisions and priorities of the National Water Program will be based
upon the clear direction given by Congress in the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Following the rule of law, all regulation and policy will be based on what the law directs and
incorporate robust input from the public. Input from the public will help make our water policy
beneficial to both the environment and the economy.
While much progress in water quality has been made over the last two decades, challenges remain
to protect America's waters, particularly as it relates to aging infrastructure. In FY 2018, the
National Water Program will focus its resources on supporting the modernization of outdated water
infrastructure; creating incentives for new water technologies and innovation; and funding the core
requirements of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act while providing states and
tribes with flexibility to best address their particular priorities.
Highlights of the FY 2018 President's Budget:
FY 2018 resources include $2,873 billion and 1,778.8 FTE. Resources and FTE have been targeted
to focus on core water programs authorized by statute. Funding for the categorical grants to states
and tribes to support core water programs is $250 million.
Water Infrastructure Investments
A top priority for the National Water Program is modernizing the outdated water infrastructure on
which the American public depends. Robust funding is provided for critical drinking and
wastewater infrastructure. These funding levels further the President's ongoing commitment to
infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow states, municipalities, and private entities
to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments that protect human health and the
environment. The FY 2018 budget includes $2.3 billion for the State Revolving Funds and $20
million for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Under WIFIA,
the EPA could potentially provide up to $1 billion in credit assistance, which, when combined with
other funding sources, would spur an estimated $2 billion in total infrastructure investment.1
1 This approximation is based on notional calculations. Subsidy cost is determined on a loan-by-loan basis.
12
-------
Categorical Grants to States and Tribes
In addition to the State Revolving Funds described above, the FY 2018 budget provides funding
for the following categorical grants that support state and tribal implementation of the Clean Water
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS), Pollution
Control (Sec. 106), Underground Injection Control (UIC), and Wetlands Program Development
Grants. The EPA will work with states and tribes to target the funds to core requirements while
providing states and tribes with flexibility to best address their particular priorities.
Safe Drinking Water
The FY 2018 budget requests $83.7 million for Drinking Water Programs, including science and
technology programs. The EPA will continue work to revise the Lead and Copper Rule, providing
certainty to states and Tribes, and to develop regulations to implement the Water Infrastructure
Improvement for the Nation Act and the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. In addition,
the EPA will continue work with states to develop the next generation management and reporting
tool used by the majority of state drinking water programs. The new Safe Drinking Water
Information System tool will provide the following benefits: improvements in program efficiency
and data quality, greater public access to drinking water data, facilitation of electronic reporting,
reductions in reporting burdens on laboratories and water utilities, reductions in data management
burden for states, and ultimately reduction in public health risk.
Clean Water
The FY 2018 budget requests $175 million for Surface Water Protection and $18.1 for Wetlands.
The FY 2018 budget supports the following core Surface Water Protection program components:
water quality criteria, standards and technology; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES); water monitoring; Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); watershed management;
water infrastructure and grants management; core wetlands programs and Clean Water Act Section
106 program management. In FY 2018, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will work to
implement the President's Executive Order directing the Administrator of the EPA and the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the 2015 Clean Water Rule and publish
for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and
consistent with law.
Homeland Security
In FY 2018, the EPA will propose a targeted set of activities and outreach in its role as the sector
specific agency for the water sector critical infrastructure. Outreach and technical assistance will
be provided for the highest priority areas. Under Executive Order 13636: Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity, the EPA, in FY 2018, will continue to coordinate water sector
specific cybersecurity risks with DHS.
13
-------
Research
The EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research program is funded at $68.5
million in the FY 2018 President Budget. The SSWR research program uses a systems approach
to develop scientific and technological solutions for the protection of human health and
watersheds. The research is conducted in partnership with other EPA programs, federal and state
agencies, academia, non-governmental agencies, public and private stakeholders, and the scientific
community. This approach maximizes efficiency, interdisciplinary insights and integration of
results.
14
-------
Cleaning up Land
Introduction
The EPA works to improve the health and livelihood of all Americans by cleaning up and restoring
our land, preventing contamination, and responding to emergencies. Approximately 166 million
people - roughly 53 percent of the U.S. population and 55 percent of children under the age of 5
- live within three miles of a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Corrective Action, or a Brownfields site that received EPA funding2. Collaborating with and
effectively leveraging efforts of other federal agencies, industry, states, tribes, and local
communities, the EPA uses its resources to enhance the livability and economic vitality of
neighborhoods in and around hazardous waste sites.
The EPA partners with states, tribes and industry to prevent and reduce exposure to contaminants.
Superfund and RCRA provide legal authority for the EPA's work to protect and restore the land.
The agency and its partners use Superfund authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites, allowing land to be returned to productive use. Under RCRA, the EPA
works in partnership with states and tribes to address risks associated with the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of waste as well as works to clean up contamination
at active sites.
The EPA works collaboratively with international, state, Tribal, and local governments to reach
its goals and consider the effects of decisions on communities. The EPA will continue to work
with communities to help them understand and address risks posed by intentional and accidental
releases of hazardous substances into the environment and ensure that communities have an
opportunity to participate in environmental decisions that affect them. The EPA's efforts are
guided by scientific data, tools, and research that alert us to emerging issues and inform decisions
on managing materials and addressing contaminated properties.
The EPA ensures federal environmental laws are implemented in Indian country. In situations in
which tribes are not administering Tribal environmental programs, the EPA generally directly
implements those programs to ensure protection of Tribal health and the environment. At this time,
EPA directly implements the majority of federal environmental programs in Indian country. The
EPA seeks to ensure that federal environment statutes are as effective inside Indian county as they
are outside Indian country.
In FY 2018, the agency requests $1 million and 5.0 FTE to focus on analyzing the economic and
regulatory impacts on the largest manufacturing sectors of the U.S. economy, streamline
permitting processes and provide technical assistance to communities. The EPA will build
constructive relationships with the largest manufacturing sectors of our economy. The goals are to
ensure that the agency understands the needs of our customers, the regulated community, and
states; identifies collaborative and innovative solutions to overcome barriers that prevent job
2U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management Estimate 2015. Data collected includes: (1) site information as of the end
of FY13; and (2) census data from the 2007-2013 American Community Survey.
15
-------
creation and economic growth; and provide for better-informed rulemakings, reduced burden,
increased transparency about environmental performance, and develop efficient, effective,
consensus-based solutions to environmental problems.
Highlights of the FY 2018 President's Budget:
The FY 2018 request is $992.2 million and 2,255.1 FTE. The EPA will focus on implementing
core programs where a federal presence is required by the statute. Decisions and priorities will be
based upon the clear direction given by Congress. Following the rule of law, all regulation and
policy will be based on what the law directs and incorporate robust input from the public. Input
from the public will help make our policy beneficial to both the environment and the economy.
Restoring Contaminated Sites to Productive Use, Creating Jobs and New Economic Opportunities
The EPA's cleanup programs (i.e., Superfund Remedial, Superfund Federal Facilities, Superfund
Emergency Response and Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, and Brownfields) work
cooperatively with state, Tribal, and local partners to take proactive steps to facilitate the cleanup
and revitalization of contaminated properties. Cleanup programs protect both human health and
the environment and return sites to productive use, which is important to the economic well-being
of communities.
In FY 2018, the EPA is looking to identify efficiencies and reduce administrative costs to
accelerate the pace of cleanups. The agency will continue to help communities clean up and
revitalize once productive properties by: removing contamination; enabling economic
development; taking advantage of existing infrastructure; and maintaining, and improving quality
of life. There are multiple benefits associated with cleaning up contaminated sites: reducing
mortality and morbidity risk; preventing and reducing human exposure to contaminants; making
land available for commercial, residential, industrial, or recreational reuse; and promoting
community economic development.
Working collaboratively with partners across the country, the EPA engages with communities in
site cleanup decisions, fosters employment opportunities in communities during and after remedy
construction, promotes the redevelopment of blighted areas, and protects human health and the
environment. Superfund properties are often reused as commercial facilities, retail centers,
government offices, residential areas, industrial and manufacturing operations, and parks and
recreational areas. The reuse often can play a role in economically revitalizing a community
The EPA works in partnership with states, having authorized 44 states and one territory to directly
implement the RCRA Corrective Action program3. This program is responsible for overseeing
and managing cleanups at active RCRA sites. States have been challenged in the cleanup program,
and through worksharing, the agency serves as lead or support for a significant number of complex
and challenging cleanups in both non-authorized and authorized states.
The UST program has achieved significant success in addressing releases since the beginning of
the program and will continue to do so with a request of $11,976 million. End of year FY 2016
3 State implementation of the CA Program is funded through the STAG (Program Project 11) and matching State contributions
16
-------
data shows that, of the approximately 532,000 releases reported since the beginning of the UST
program in 1988, more than 461,000 (or 86.7 percent) have been cleaned up. Approximately
71,000 releases remain that have not reached cleanup completion. The EPA is working with states
to develop and implement specific strategies and activities applicable to their particular sites to
reduce the UST releases remaining to be cleaned up.
By awarding Brownfields grants, the EPA is making investments in communities so that they can
realize their own visions for environmental health, economic growth, and job creation. As of April
2017, the grants awarded by the program have led to over 67,000 acres of idle land made ready for
productive use and over 124,300 jobs and $23.6 billion leveraged.4
Chemical Facility Safety
In FY 2018, the EPA requests $10 million for the State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
program. States and communities often lack the capacity needed to prepare for and/or respond to
these emergencies or to prevent them from happening, and the EPA fills valuable role in filling
this gap.
The program establishes a structure composed of federal, state, local, and Tribal partners who work
together with industry to protect emergency responders, local communities, and property from
chemical risks through advanced technologies, community and facility engagement, and improved
safety systems. In FY 2018 the program will inspect Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities to
ensure compliance with accident prevention and preparedness activities. There are approximately
12,500 chemical RMP facilities that are subject to inspections in the program. Of these,
approximately 1,900 facilities have been designated as high-risk based upon their accident history,
quantity of on-site dangerous chemicals stored, and proximity to large residential populations.5
Strategic Environmental Management
In FY 2018, the agency will focus on streamlining the permitting processes, which impact
environmental protection and economic development in many sectors of the economy. This work
will be done in conjunction with and in support of the Presidents' Memorandum Streamlining
Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing.6 While the EPA's
permits will continue to protect human health and the environment, the more efficiently the agency
works with state partners and the regulated industry, the more quickly permits can be issued,
fostering greater environmental protection and economic development.
RCRA Waste Management
The FY 2018 budget provides $41.1 million to the RCRA Waste Management program. In FY
2018, RCRA permits for approximately 20,000 hazardous waste units (such as incinerators and
landfills) at 6,600 treatment, storage, and disposal facilities will be issued, updated or maintained.
4 The EPA's ACRES database.
5 For additional information, refer to: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-13/pdf/2016-31426.pdf
6 For more information: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/presidential-memorandum-streamlining-
permitting-and-reducing-regulatorv
17
-------
The EPA will focus on PCB cleanups and providing work-sharing and leadership assistance to the
states and territories authorized to implement the permitting program and directly implements the
entire RCRA program in two states.
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
On October 5, 2012, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act was enacted,
requiring the EPA to develop and maintain a hazardous waste electronic manifest system. The
system will be designed to, among other functions, assemble and maintain the information
contained in the estimated five million manifest forms accompanying hazardous waste shipments
across the nation. When fully implemented, the electronic hazardous waste manifest (e-Manifest)
program will reduce the reporting burden for industry by approximately $75 million annually. In
FY 2018, the system will go into service and will transition into a fee-funded program.
Oil Spill Prevention
The inland oil spills can threaten human health, cause severe environmental damage, and create
financial loss to industry and the public. The Oil Spill program helps protect the American people
by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding to, and monitoring inland oil spills. The EPA
serves as the lead responder for cleanup of all inland zone spills, including transportation-related
spills, and provides technical assistance and support to the U.S. Coast Guard for coastal and
maritime oil spills. In FY 2018, the EPA requests a total of $12.1 million for the Oil Spill
Prevention, Preparedness and Response program.
Homeland Security
The EPA's Homeland Security work is an important component of the agency's prevention,
protection, and response activities. The FY 2018 budget submission includes $15 million to
maintain agency capability to respond to incidents that may involve harmful chemical, biological,
and radiological (CBR) substances. Resources also will allow the agency to develop and maintain
expertise and operational readiness for all phases of consequential management following a CBR
incident.
Environmental Protection in Indian Country
The EPA Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) provides financial assistance
to tribes to assist with capacity building and the development of environmental protection
programs in Indian country. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to fund the GAP grants which will
allow tribes to develop media-specific environmental programs and also will ensure adequate
resources for grantees to successfully implement the EPA-Tribal Environmental Plans (ETEPs)
that outline their environmental program priorities and goals at the local level. Tribal resources are
essential to address long-standing challenges to recruit and retain qualified environmental
professionals to remote Indian country locations and will assist tribes with the implementation of
environmental regulatory programs.
18
-------
The magnitude of Tribal environmental and human health challenges reinforces the importance of
the EPA's commitment to maintaining strong environmental protections in Indian country and to
working with other federal agencies to effectively leverage resources. The EPA, the Department
of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), the
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have worked
through several Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) as partners to improve infrastructure on
Tribal lands. The Infrastructure Task Force will build on prior partnership success, including
improved access to funding and reduced administrative burden for Tribal communities, through
the review and streamlining of agency policies, regulations, and directives, as well as improved
coordination of technical assistance to water service providers and solid waste managers through
regular coordination meetings and web-based tools.
Research
In FY 2018, the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) program is funded at $60.7 million
and will prioritize efforts to continue to support the EPA's program offices and state and Tribal
partners in protecting and restoring land, and providing community decision makers with decision
tools to support community health and well-being. In FY 2018, the EPA research personnel and
associated support staff will analyze existing research data and publish scientific journal articles
to disseminate findings associated with these data.
The SHC program also will continue to develop or revise protocols to test oil spill control agents
or products for listing on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, including dispersants'
performance and behavior in deep water and arctic conditions. Additional research outcomes
include improved characterization and remediation methods for fuels released from leaking
underground storage tanks.
19
-------
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
Introduction
Chemicals are present in our everyday lives and products. They are used in the production of
everything from our homes and cars to the cell phones we carry and the food we eat. Chemicals
often may be released into the environment as a result of their manufacture, import, processing,
use, and disposal.
The budget ensures the agency has the resources to address the safety of new chemicals and
existing chemicals through the implementation of new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Under authorization by TSCA, as amended, on June 22, 2016, by the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the EPA is charged with the responsibility of assessing
the safety of commercial and industrial chemicals and acting upon those chemicals if they pose
significant risks to human health or the environment. The new law requires that an affirmative
determination be made by the EPA on whether a new chemical substance will present, may present,
or is not likely to present an unreasonable risk (or that available information is insufficient to
enable any of these determinations to be made) before the chemical substance can proceed to the
marketplace. The EPA also will maintain an ambitious schedule for initiating and completing in
a timely manner risk evaluations of existing chemicals and, where risks are identified, for initiating
and completing regulatory actions and increased communications with manufacturers to address
risks. Work on the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated began in December 2016. By law, there must
be 20 evaluations ongoing by the end of 2019. In addition, most claims of confidentiality for
chemical identity must be reviewed in 90 days, as well as 25 percent of all other claims for
confidentiality.
The EPA's pesticide licensing program evaluates new pesticides before they reach the market and
ensure that pesticides already in commerce are safe when used in accordance with the label as
directed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The EPA will
register pesticides in a manner that protects consumers, pesticide users, workers, children, and
other populations who may be exposed to pesticides. The program also will continue the
registration review process for older pesticides. For all pesticides in review, the EPA will evaluate
potential impacts on the environment.
The EPA has a long history of collaboration to address a wide range of domestic and global
environmental issues. The EPA envisions that environmental actions in cooperation with
international partners can catalyze even greater progress toward protecting our domestic
environment. The EPA's work with international organizations is essential to successfully
addressing transboundary pollution adversely impacting the U.S., strengthening environmental
protection abroad so that it is on par with practices in the United States, and supporting the foreign
policy objectives outlined by the White House, the National Security Council, and the Department
of State.
The EPA research programs of Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS), Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA), and Homeland Security underpin the analysis of risks and potential health
20
-------
impacts across the broad spectrum of EPA programs and provide the scientific foundation for
chemical safety. In FY 2018, the EPA will further strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by continuing an integrated research approach that tackles problems systematically.
Highlights of the FY 2018 President's Budget:
In FY 2018, the agency expects to review over 1,000 new chemical submissions, take appropriate
testing and risk management actions and make affirmative determinations in a timely manner and
as close to the 90-day review as possible. The program also will evaluate the data submitted from
Section 5 Consent Orders and address submitted Notices of Commencement (NOCs). In FY 2018,
the EPA's toxics program will maintain its 'zero tolerance' goal for preventing the introduction of
unsafe new chemicals into commerce.
Chemical Safety
In FY 2018, $65 million is directed to the TSCA Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program.
This increase in funding will support the agency's significant continuing and new responsibilities
for ensuring that chemicals in commerce do not present unreasonable risks to human health or the
environment. As authorized by the amendments to TSCA, the agency expects to collect TSCA
Service fees beginning in FY 2018 in support of certain responsibilities under the new law.
Review of new chemicals will be prioritized. Scheduling will reflect a need for the agency to
eliminate the backlog of reviews in order to ensure chemicals go to market in a manner that better
promotes economic development. Timely evaluation will be based on the intended use of
chemicals.
For chemicals in commerce, the EPA will maintain an ambitious schedule for initiating and
completing chemical risk evaluations and, where risks are identified, for initiating and completing
regulatory actions to address those risks. In FY 2018, the agency will be working to advance the
first 10 chemicals that will undergo risk evaluations through the draft, peer review/public comment
and final stages. In FY 2018, the agency plans to commence the process for identifying an
additional 10 chemicals for which risk evaluation will be initiated during 2018-2019, to have 20
risk evaluations underway by the end of 2019. The EPA may require testing on up to 12 chemicals
in connection with the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, where such testing is needed.
Under TSCA section 6(h), there is a new fast-track process to address certain PBT chemicals; the
EPA has begun risk management actions to address five of these Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic
(PBTs) within the prescribed period mandated by the law. The agency expects to publish an
Alternative Testing Methods Strategy by June 2018, two years after the date of enactment, as
required by the new law. In FY 2018, the EPA will finalize the designation of chemical substances
on the TSCA inventory as either "active" or "inactive" in U.S. commerce. And throughout the
fiscal year, the EPA will implement the new mandate to make determinations on claims for
confidentiality for chemical identities and 25 percent of all other claims for confidentiality.
The agency also will provide firm and individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-
based paint abatement and renovation and repair efforts, as well as provide for the operation and
21
-------
maintenance of the online Federal Lead-Based Paint program database (FLPP) that supports the
processing of applications for training providers, firms and individuals.
Identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the pesticides on which our society and
economy rely is integral to ensuring environmental and human safety. Chemical and biological
pesticides help meet national and global demands for food. They provide effective pest control for
homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, and drinking water treatment facilities,
while also controlling vectors of disease. The program ensures that the pesticides available in the
U.S. are safe when used as directed. The agency's pesticide program is increasing its focus on
pollinator health as well, working with other federal partners, states, and private stakeholder
groups to stem pollinator declines and increase pollinator habitat. In addition, the program places
priority on reduced risk pesticides that, once registered, will result in increased societal benefits.
In FY 2018, $99.4 million in appropriated funding is provided to support the EPA's pesticide
registration review and registration program. The EPA will invest resources to improve the
compliance of pesticide registrations with the Endangered Species Act. A portion of the funding
also will ensure that pesticides are correctly registered and applied in a manner that protects water
quality. The EPA will continue registration and reregi strati on requirements for antimicrobial
pesticides. Together, these programs will minimize exposure to pesticides, maintain a safe and
affordable food supply, address public health issues, and minimize property damage that can occur
from insects, pests and microbes. The agency's worker protection, certification, and training
programs will encourage safe application practices. The EPA also will continue to emphasize
reducing exposures from pesticides used in and around homes, schools, and other public areas.
The EPA will continue to work to improve pollinator health by performing laboratory analyses of
honeybees and related resources, such as hive structures. The EPA will continue to assess the
effects of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bee and other pollinator health and take action
as appropriate to protect pollinators, engage state and Tribal agencies in the development of
pollinator protection plans, and expedite review of registration applications for new products
targeting pests harmful to pollinators.
International Priorities
To achieve our domestic environmental and human health goals, international partnerships are
essential, including those with the business community, entrepreneurs and other members of
society. Pollution is often carried by wind and water across national boundaries, posing risks to
human health and ecosystems many hundreds and thousands of miles away. In FY 2018, the EPA
will continue to engage both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions to improve
international cooperation to prevent and address the transboundary movement of pollution. In
particular, the Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) will continue technical and policy
assistance for global and regional efforts to address international sources of harmful pollutants,
such as mercury.
In FY 2018, the agency also will maintain a targeted set of efforts to reduce environmental threats
to U.S. citizens. In particular, the EPA will continue technical and policy assistance for global and
regional efforts to address international sources of harmful pollutants, such as mercury. Because
22
-------
70 percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from global sources7, both domestic efforts
and international cooperation are important to address mercury pollution.
Research
The EPA research programs of Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS), Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA), and Homeland Security underpin the analysis of risks and potential health
impacts across the broad spectrum of EPA programs and provide the scientific foundation for
chemical safety and pollution prevention. In FY 2018, the EPA will further strengthen its planning
and delivery of science by continuing an integrated research approach that tackles problems
systematically.
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS)
In FY 2018, the EPA is requesting $61.7 million for the CSS research program. These resources
will: 1) incorporate advances in computational chemistry to allow use of information from
chemical structures with known bioactivity to other structures with less data (i.e. read-across) in
concert with growing international efforts; 2) use the high-throughput hazard and exposure
information to begin to evaluate cumulative risk of chemical exposures; and 3) demonstrate how
the ToxCast/Tox21 data can be used to develop high-throughput risk assessments, in particular for
data-poor chemicals. The EPA also will utilize resources to research responsibilities under the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that support new assessment and
chemical review capabilities, as directed by the law.
FY 2018 presents an opportunity to further enhance and broaden the application of the CSS
computational toxicology research to agency activities across diverse regulatory frameworks. New
emerging applications can add significant efficiency and effectiveness to agency operations. The
applications complement efforts of the agency's Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
program to apply high throughput and other 21st Century exposure information to Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) chemical prioritization.
Additionally, the CSS program will continue to apply computational and knowledge-driven
approaches to amplify the impact of its research on engineered nanomaterials and on evaluation of
emerging safer chemical alternatives. Results of this research will provide guidelines for
evaluating potential impacts of emerging materials from the molecular design phase throughout
their lifecycle in their applications to goods and products in commerce. These research directions
are in keeping with the environmental health and safety research needs identified by the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. Through specific case studies, CSS will further evaluate the impact of
nanomaterial exposures through ubiquitous use in consumer products and lifecycle impacts,
including discharge to wastewater or impact to biosolids.
Finally, the CSS research program is the lead national research program for the agency's
Children's Environmental Health (CEH) Roadmap. Transforming EPA's capacity for considering
child-specific vulnerabilities requires that the program apply advanced systems science and
integrate diverse emerging data and knowledge in exposure, toxicology, and epidemiology to
7 http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/mercury/mnegotiations.html; www.mercuryconvention.org;
23
-------
improve understanding of the role of exposure to environmental factors during early life on health
impacts that may occur at any point over the life course.
Research: Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
In FY 2018, the agency's Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program will continue to
develop assessments and scientific products that are used extensively by EPA programs and
regional offices and the risk management community to estimate the potential risk to human health
from exposure to environmental contaminants. These include:
Integrated Risk Information System health hazard and dose-response assessments;
Integrated Science Assessments of criteria air pollutants;
Community risk science; and
Advancing analyses and applications.
Research: Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP)
The Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) will continue to enhance the nation's
preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for homeland security incidents and other
hazards by providing stakeholders and partners with valuable detection and response analytics for
incidents involving chemical, biological, or radiological agents. The program will continue to
emphasize the research needed to support response and recovery from wide-area attacks involving
radiological agents, nuclear agents, and biothreat agents such as anthrax.
In FY 2018, $108.2 million is directed to the Chemical Safety and Sustainability, Human Health
Risk Assessment, and Homeland Security Research programs.
24
-------
Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance
Introduction
The EPA's enforcement program is focused on assuring compliance with our nation's
environmental laws. Consistent regulatory enforcement also levels the playing field among
regulated entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do not have an unfair
advantage over their law-abiding competitors. The EPA works in partnership with state and Tribal
agencies to achieve this objective and to ensure that our communities have clean air, water, and
land. To improve compliance, the EPA works to provide accessible tools that help regulated
entities, federal agencies, and the public understand these laws and find efficient, cost effective
means for putting them into practice. The EPA's enforcement program prioritizes inspections and
other monitoring and enforcement activities based on the degree of health and environmental risk.
The program collaborates with the Department of Justice, states, local government agencies, and
Tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and
regulations.
Highlights of the FY 2018 President's Budget:
Compliance Monitoring
The Compliance Monitoring program provides the critical infrastructure to promote compliance
with the nation's environmental laws and protect human health and the environment. Compliance
monitoring is comprised of a variety of tools and activities that states and the EPA use to identify
whether regulated entities are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and permit
conditions. In addition, compliance monitoring activities such as inspections and investigations
are conducted to determine whether conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the environment.
In FY 2018, the EPA's compliance monitoring activities such as field inspections, data tools, and
assistance will focus on those programs that are not delegated to states, while providing some
targeted oversight and support to state, local, and Tribal programs. The agency will prioritize work
with states to develop methods that successfully leverage advances in both monitoring and
information technology.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to maintain ICIS access to the agency, states, and the public,
and implement the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule covering e-reporting rule permitting
requirements for the EPA and states on an adjusted schedule. In FY 2018, the EPA will work with
states to prioritize next steps for the development of electronic reporting tools that support states.
The EPA's electronic reporting tools save the states a significant amount of resources in
development and operations and maintenance costs. In FY 2018, the proposed budget for
compliance monitoring is $87.2 million.
25
-------
Civil Enforcement
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to maximize compliance with the nation's
environmental laws and regulations in order to protect human health and the environment. The
program collaborates with the Department of Justice, states, local agencies, and Tribal
governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations.
The program seeks to strengthen environmental partnerships with co-implementers in the states,
encourage regulated entities to rapidly correct their own violations, ensure that violators do not
realize an economic benefit from noncompliance, and pursue enforcement to deter future
violations.
In FY 2018, recognizing the role of states as primary implementers, the EPA will focus resources
on direct implementation responsibilities and the most significant violations. Direct
implementation responsibilities include programs that are not delegable or where a state has not
sought or obtained the authority to implement a particular program. Examples include the Clean
Air Act mobile source program, pesticide labeling and registration under FIFRA, enforcement on
Tribal lands, and enforcement of non-delegated portions of various other laws, including RCRA,
the Clean Water Act, and stratospheric ozone under the CAA, among others. The EPA also will
continue to pursue enforcement actions at federal facilities where significant violations are
discovered. The agency will refocus efforts from areas where significant progress has been made
(and which no longer require as active an enforcement presence) toward areas that address the
most substantial impacts to human health. In FY 2018, the proposed budget for civil enforcement
is $143.3 million.
Criminal Enforcement
The EPA's Criminal Enforcement program enforces the nation's environmental laws through
targeted investigation of criminal conduct, committed by individual and corporate defendants, that
threatens public health and the environment. In FY 2018, the Criminal Enforcement program will
focus its resources on the most egregious cases (e.g., significant human health, environmental, and
deterrent impacts), while balancing its overall case load across all environmental statutes. The
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program plays a critical role across the country, since states have a
very limited capacity to prosecute environmental crimes. The Criminal Enforcement program
within our resource levels will continue to collaborate and coordinate with the Civil Enforcement
program to ensure that the EPA's Enforcement program responds to violations as effectively as
possible. In FY 2018, the proposed budget for Criminal Enforcement is $44.5 million.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with OMB, CEQ, and other federal agencies to coordinate,
streamline, and improve the NEPA process.8 The EPA will work with agencies as they implement
FAST-41, which sets out requirements to streamline infrastructure permitting project reviews.9
The EPA also will work to implement the Executive Order: "Expediting Environmental Reviews
8 For additional information, refer to: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf.
9 For additional information, refer to: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf.
26
-------
and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects."10 The program expects to achieve some
efficiencies by expediting environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure
projects.
During FY 2018, the EPA will focus resources on the most significant proposals for major federal
actions. As a component of this effort, the program will use and promote NEP Assist, a geographic
information system (GIS) tool developed to assist users (the EPA, other federal agencies, and the
public) with environmental reviews. In FY 2018, the proposed budget for NEP A is $13.5 million.
Forensics Support
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases, as well as technical expertise for
agency compliance efforts. The work of the EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is critical to determining non-compliance and building viable enforcement cases. The
NEIC maintains a sophisticated chemistry laboratory and a corps of highly trained inspectors and
scientists with a wide range of environmental scientific expertise. In FY 2018, NEIC will provide
high-quality forensics work within our resource levels in support of the highest priority
investigations. Initiatives to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2018 will
include improvements in inspection methods used at regulated hazardous waste facilities and
utilizing existing technologies, such as advanced remote sensing for on-site air and water sampling
for toxic and non-conventional pollutants. In FY 2018, the proposed budget for Forensics Support
is $11.2 million.
Superfund Enforcement
The EPA's Superfund Enforcement program protects communities by ensuring that responsible
parties conduct cleanups, preserving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing
parties. The EPA's Superfund Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and reuse by
maximizing the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying for cleanups. In
both the Superfund Remedial and Superfund Emergency Response and Removal programs, the
Superfund Enforcement program obtains potentially responsible parties commitments to perform
and pay for cleanups through civil, judicial, and administrative site actions.
In FY 2018, the agency will prioritize its efforts on the most significant sites in terms of
environmental impact and potential cost liability to the government. The agency will continue its
efforts to establish special accounts (site-specific, interest-bearing accounts funded by the
potentially responsible party under a settlement agreement for cleanup and enforcement activities
at the site for which it received the money). Since special account funds may only be used for sites
and uses specified in the settlement agreement, both special account resources and annually
appropriated resources are critical to the Superfund program to clean up Superfund sites.
In FY 2018, the EPA will focus its resources on the highest priority federal sites, particularly those
that may present an imminent and/or substantial endangerment, and on resolving formal disputes
10 For additional information, refer to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/executive-order-expediting-
environmental-reviews-and-approvals-high.
27
-------
under the Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs). In FY 2018, the EPA is requesting to merge the
Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program with the Superfund Enforcement program. The
agency will optimize the resources between the two programs. In FY 2018 the proposed budget
for the Superfund Enforcement program is $94.4 million.
Partnering with States and Tribes
In FY 2018, the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will sustain its environmental
enforcement partnerships with states and Tribes and work to strengthen their ability to address
environmental and public health threats. In FY 2018, the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
program will provide $14.5 million in grants to the states and Tribes to assist in the implementation
of compliance and enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These grants support state and
Tribal compliance activities to protect human health and the environment from harmful chemicals
and pesticides. Under the Pesticides Enforcement Grant program, the EPA will continue to provide
resources to states and Tribes to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections and take appropriate
enforcement actions. The Toxic Substances Compliance Grants protect the public and the
environment from PCBs, asbestos, and lead-based paint.
28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Science and Technology
Resource Summary Table 31
Program Area: Clean Air 34
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 35
GHG Reporting Program 38
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 39
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification 41
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation 46
Indoor Air: Radon Program 47
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 48
Radiation: Protection 49
Radiation: Response Preparedness 51
Program Area: Enforcement 53
Forensics Support 54
Program Area: Homeland Security 56
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 57
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 58
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 63
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 64
IT / Data Management 65
Program Area: Operations and Administration 67
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 68
Workforce Reshaping 70
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 72
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 73
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 77
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 80
Program Area: Research: Air and Energy 82
Research: Air and Energy 83
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources 86
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources 87
29
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities 91
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities 92
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability 95
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability 96
Human Health Risk Assessment 100
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 104
Drinking Water Programs 105
Program Area: Congressional Priorities 107
Water Quality Research and Support Grants 108
30
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
Budget Authority
$763,829.4
$733,251.0
$450,812.0
($282,439.0)
Total Workyears
2,107.0
2,199.7
1,484.7
-715.0
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfund account.
Bill Language: Science and Technology
For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include
research and development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs and
travel expenses; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; and other operating expenses
in support of research and development, $450,812,000, to remain available until September 30,
2019.
Program Projects in S&T
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Clean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
$8,149.6
$7,793.0
$5,739.0
($2,054.0)
GHG Reporting Program
$8,824.2
$8,003.0
$0.0
($8,003.0)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$6,234.3
$7,453.0
$3,959.0
($3,494.0)
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
$85,613.6
$93,070.0
$76,010.0
($17,060.0)
Subtotal, Clean Air
$108,821.7
$116,319.0
$85,708.0
($30,611.0)
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
$378.9
$172.0
$0.0
($172.0)
Radiation: Protection
$2,064.5
$1,831.0
$0.0
($1,831.0)
Radiation: Response Preparedness
$3,716.5
$3,774.0
$3,339.0
($435.0)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
$260.4
$209.0
$0.0
($209.0)
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
$6,420.3
$5,986.0
$3,339.0
($2,647.0)
31
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Enforcement
Forensics Support
$13,949.7
$13,643.0
$10,444.0
($3,199.0)
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
$9,807.2
$10,497.0
$0.0
($10,497.0)
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
$26,800.2
$26,004.0
$22,597.0
($3,407.0)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
$551.0
$551.0
$500.0
($51.0)
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$37,158.4
$37,052.0
$23,097.0
($13,955.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
$2,892.6
$3,083.0
$2,725.0
($358.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$10,995.0
$10,995.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$79,334.0
$11,125.0
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
$3,772.1
$3,122.0
$2,274.0
($848.0)
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
$1,737.5
$2,324.0
$2,195.0
($129.0)
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
$427.4
$570.0
$527.0
($43.0)
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
$5,937.0
$6,016.0
$4,996.0
($1,020.0)
Research: Air and Energy
Research: Air and Energy
$104,407.9
$91,731.0
$30,592.0
($61,139.0)
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources
$114,874.9
$107,230.0
$68,520.0
($38,710.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$154,349.4
$139,709.0
$54,211.0
($85,498.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
$36,007.0
$37,530.0
$22,516.0
($15,014.0)
32
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Endocrine Disruptors
$15,980.1
$0.0
$10,122.0
$10,122.0
Computational Toxicology
$23,937.4
$0.0
$17,165.0
$17,165.0
Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability (other activities)
$53,405.9
$89,158.0
$34,386.0
($54,772.0)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
$93,323.4
$89,158.0
$61,673.0
($27,485.0)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
$129,330.4
$126,688.0
$84,189.0
($42,499.0)
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
$3,975.8
$3,512.0
$3,657.0
$145.0
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
$10,378.5
$14,073.0
$0.0
($14,073.0)
Subtotal, Water Quality Research and
Support Grants
$10,378.5
$14,073.0
$0.0
($14,073.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$763,829.4
$733,251.0
$450,812.0
($282,439.0)
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfund account.
33
-------
Program Area: Clean Air
34
-------
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$17,343.4
$16,112.0
$12,791.0
($3,321.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S S.NV./I
$7,793.0
s.\ ~.w.o
(S 2.054M)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$25,493.0
$23,905.0
$18,530.0
($5,375.0)
Total Workyears
71.7
71.4
63.7
-7.7
Program Project Description:
This program is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET),
a long-term ambient monitoring network, established under Title IX of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990, which serves as the nation's primary source for atmospheric data on the dry
component of acid deposition, regional ground-level ozone, and other forms of particulate and
gaseous air pollution. Used in conjunction with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's
(NADP) wet deposition networks and other ambient air quality networks, CASTNET's long-term
datasets and data products are used to determine the effectiveness of national and regional emission
control programs. The CASTNET program provides spatial and temporal trends in ambient air
quality and atmospheric deposition in non-urban areas and sensitive ecosystems (i.e., National
Parks). Maintaining the CASTNET monitoring network continues to be critical for assessing the
environmental benefits realized from the Acid Rain Program and regional programs that control
transported emissions (thereby reducing secondary pollutant formation of ozone and fine particles).
The EPA's Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program was created to assess the health of water bodies
in response to changes in deposition of atmospheric pollutants. Today, it ensures that the Clean Air
Act continues to be effective in reducing the impact of atmospheric pollutants (e.g., strong acid
anions) on surface waters in New England, the Adirondack Mountains, the Northern Appalachian
Plateau (including the Catskill and Pocono mountains), and the Blue Ridge region. This program
is operated cooperatively with numerous partners in state agencies, academic institutions, and other
federal agencies. The LTM surface water chemistry monitoring program provides field
measurements for understanding biogeochemical changes in sulfur, nitrogen, acid neutralizing
capacity (ANC), aluminum, and carbon in streams and lakes in relation to changing pollutant
emissions. The LTM program is one of the longest running programs at the EPA, providing long-
term datasets based on sampling and measurements that go back to 1983.
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, established under Title I and IV of the Clean Air Act, help
implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Acid Rain Program, as
well as reduce toxics emissions and regional haze. Pollutants reduced include sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), ground-level ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and mercury. The EPA
provides assistance to states as they develop, implement, and assess their state and regional
programs to address major regional and national air issues from large stationary sources. This
35
-------
assistance has traditionally come in the form of technical analysis, modeling, and emissions
monitoring support.
In July 2011, the EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR, which took
effect on January 1, 2015,1 requires 27 states to limit their state-wide emissions of SO2 and/or NOx
in order to reduce or eliminate the states' contributions to fine particulate matter and/or ground-
level ozone pollution in other states. The emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum
state-wide "budgets" for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOx, and/or ozone-season NOx from
each state's large electric generating units (EGUs). In September 2016, the EPA finalized an update
to CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will:
• Continue quality assurance, analysis, and reporting of environmental data from the
CASTNET deposition/rural ozone and LTM surface water monitoring networks to the
extent possible. Analyze and assess trends in sulfur and nitrogen deposition, rural ozone
concentrations, surface water quality, and other indicators of ecosystem health and
ambient air quality in non-urban areas of the U.S.
• Assure the continuation of ongoing SO2 and NOx emission reductions from power plants
in the eastern half of the U.S. by implementing CSAPR and the CSAPR update, and across
the contiguous U.S. by implementing the Acid Rain Program.2
• Ensure accurate and consistent results for the programs. Work will continue on
performance specifications and investigating monitoring alternatives and methods to
improve the efficiency of monitor certification and emissions data reporting.
• Work with states to implement emission reduction programs to comply with CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements.
The EPA tracks the change in nitrogen deposition and sulfur deposition to assess the effectiveness
of the Acid Rain and related programs with performance targets set for every three years. The EPA
1 CSAPR was stayed and then vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's
opinion vacating the rule, EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), and the D.C. Circuit subsequently lifted
the stay. In July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on remaining legal challenges to CSAPR, upholding the rule in most respects
but remanding without vacatur several state budgets to the EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). EPA is responding to the remand by withdrawing the federal implementation plan provisions requiring
compliance with the remanded budgets. Eleven of the remanded budgets addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These budgets were
withdrawn in the final rule updating CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In eight cases, the withdrawn budgets were replaced with
new budgets addressing the more recent NAAQS, and, in three cases, the budgets were withdrawn without replacement. The remaining
four remanded budgets addressed the 1997 and/or 2006 NAAQS for particulate matter. Three of the four states concerned have
submitted, or have committed to submit, state implementation plans replacing the withdrawn budgets, and withdrawal of the remanded
budgets is being coordinated with approval of the replacement budgets. To address the final remanded budget, for Texas, EPA has
issued a proposed rule that would withdraw the federal implementation plan provisions requiring Texas power plants to participate in
the CSAPR trading programs for annual emissions of SO2 and NOx without replacement. 81 FR 78954 (November 10, 2016). That
proposal has not yet been finalized.
2 Clean Air Act §§ 110(a)(2)(D) and Section 401.
36
-------
also tracks changes in surface water acidity in lakes and streams in acid sensitive regions to assess
the change in the number of chronically acidic water bodies. This is a long-term measure with a
performance target set for 2030. The EPA will close seven of 59 EPA-sponsored CASTNET
monitoring sites (six on Tribal lands) and seven of EPA's 32 National Atmospheric Deposition
Program sites. Because these are the newest sites in the network, their closure would have the
lowest impact on the agency's long-term record of monitoring.
See http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets-/proeress/progress-reports.html for additional information.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,054.0) This streamlines support for the following activities in FY 2018:
o Close seven CASTNET monitoring sites (six on Tribal lands) and seven National
Atmospheric Deposition Program sites. The EPA will limit operations at other
sites;
o Focus assistance, such as technical analysis, modeling, and emissions monitoring
support, to states as they develop, implement, and assess their state and regional
programs to address major regional and national air issues from large stationary
sources;
o Phase-out the development of a new Air Markets Program Data tool; and
o Discontinue reanalysis of the multi-state e-Government infrastructure program.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act.
37
-------
GHG Reporting Program
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$106,864.3
$95,255.0
$13,580.0
($81,675.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S KH2-I.2
SS, 003.0
S 0.0
(SS. 003.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$115,688.5
$103,258.0
$13,580.0
($89,678.0)
Total Workyears
204.5
224.1
50.0
-174.1
Program Project Description:
Within the S&T account, this program supports implementation and compliance with emission
standards.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,003.0 / -33.8 FTE) This funding change eliminates the program in the S&T account.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act; Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), §§ 6602-6605; National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), § 102; Clean Water Act, § 104; Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), § 8001; Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 756.
38
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$138,050.2
$124,506.0
$96,456.0
($28,050.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S0.2.1-/..1
s
S.1.V5V.0
(S.1.4V4M)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$144,284.5
$131,959.0
$100,415.0
($31,544.0)
Total Workyears
804.1
842.0
601.8
-240.2
Program Project Description:
Federal support for the criteria pollutant and air toxics programs includes a variety of tools to
characterize ambient air quality and the level of risk to the public from air pollutants and to measure
national progress toward improving air quality and reducing associated risks. The Federal Support
for Air Quality Management program supports development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
through modeling and other tools and assists states in implementing, attaining, maintaining,
and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants.
The program also develops and provides information, training, and tools to assist state, Tribal,
and local agencies, as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their
local areas. Finally, the program includes activities related to the Clean Air Act's stationary source
residual risk program, which involves an assessment of source categories subject to Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards to determine if more stringent standards are
needed to further reduce the risks to public health (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
As part of implementing the revised NAAQS, the EPA will provide state and local air quality
agencies with a basic level of assistance in developing SIPs during FY 2018. The EPA also will
help states identify the control options available and provide priority guidance to assist them with
attaining the NAAQS. The EPA will ensure national consistency in how air quality modeling is
conducted as part of regulatory decision-making including federal and state permitting programs
as well as how conformity determinations are conducted across the U.S. The agency will work
with state and local air quality agencies to ensure that particulate matter (PM) hot-spot analyses
are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity regulation and guidance.
The EPA is working on improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and get a better estimate
of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution. The EPA will continue to provide quality
assurance proficiency testing for federal and commercial laboratories that produce data from
PM2.5 air monitoring systems to ensure quality data for use in determining air quality.
39
-------
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with partners to continue improving emission factors and
inventories, including the National Emissions Inventory, to the extent possible. This effort includes
gathering improved activity data from monitoring equipment and using geographic information
systems and satellite remote sensing, where possible, for key point, area, mobile, and fugitive
sources, and global emission events.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance Measures
tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,494.0 / -3.1 FTE) This streamlines assistance to state, Tribal, and local agencies in
SIP/TIP development as well as activities to reduce air toxic emissions and risks for
communities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act.
40
-------
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
SX5.f> I3.fi
S'J.\0'0.0
S '(,.010.0
(SI '.000.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S85.613.6
S9.V070.0
S76.010.0
(SI 7.060.0)
Total Workyears
285.2
304.5
304.3
-0.2
Program Project Description:
Under the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program, the EPA develops,
implements, and ensures compliance with national emission standards to reduce mobile source
related air pollution from light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses, nonroad engines
and vehicles, and from the fuels that power these engines. The program also evaluates new
emission control technology and provides state, Tribal, and local air quality managers and
transportation planners with access to information on transportation programs and incentive-based
programs. As part of ensuring compliance with national emission standards, the program tests
vehicles, engines, and fuels, and establishes test procedures for federal emissions and fuel
economy standards.
The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) ensures air quality benefits and
fair competition in the marketplace by conducting testing operations on motor vehicles,
heavy-duty engines, nonroad engines, and fuels to certify that all vehicles, engines, and fuels that
enter the U.S. market comply with all federal clean air and fuel economy standards. The NVFEL
conducts vehicle emission tests as part of pre-production tests, certification audits, in-use
assessments, and recall programs to ensure compliance with mobile source clean air programs.
The EPA works with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the mobile
source control emission benefits in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and transportation
conformity determinations. The EPA develops and provides information and tools to assist state,
local, and Tribal agencies, as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risks
specific to their local areas. Reductions in emissions of mobile source air toxics, such as
components of diesel exhaust, are achieved through establishing national emissions standards and
partnership approaches working with state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as a variety of
stakeholder groups.
The EPA administers the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which was created under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which amended the Clean Air Act (CAA), and was expanded
under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The RFS program requires a
certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based
transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are
biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Obligated
41
-------
parties under the RFS program are refiners or importers of gasoline or diesel fuel. Compliance is
achieved by blending renewable fuels into transportation fuel, or by obtaining credits (called
"Renewable Identification Numbers" or RINs) to meet an EPA-specified Renewable Volume
Obligation (RVO).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program supports the agency's
integrated criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) compliance programs by operating test cells
that simultaneously measure criteria pollutants and GHG emissions, reviewing certification
applications for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines to approve applications for both the
criteria pollutant and GHG programs, and examining potential violations.
In FY 2018, the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program will focus its
efforts on certification decisions. The agency will continue to perform its compliance oversight
functions on priority matters. In FY 2018, the agency will conduct compliance oversight tests
where there is evidence to suggest noncompliance. The EPA will continue to conduct, at a reduced
level, testing activities for pre-certification confirmatory testing for emissions and fuel economy
for passenger cars.
In FY 2018, the EPA anticipates reviewing and approving about 5,000 vehicle and engine
emissions certification requests, including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty diesel engines, nonroad
engines, marine engines, locomotives, and others. This has been a significant increase in demand
for the EPA's certification services over the last two decades, due in part to the addition of
certification requirements for marine, other nonroad, and small spark-ignited engines.
The EPA uses in-use emissions data, provided by light-duty vehicle manufacturers, as a means
to measure compliance and determine if any follow-up evaluation or testing is necessary.
Since 2000, light-duty vehicle manufacturers have been required, by regulation, to test a number
of newer and older in-use vehicles and provide the data to the EPA. The EPA receives over 2,100
test results annually. The EPA reviews the data and determines if there are any specific vehicles,
models, or manufacturers that are failing emissions in-use. The EPA will use this information
submitted by light-duty manufacturers to determine if there are vehicle models that should be
identified for testing for the upcoming model year prior to granting the manufacturer a certificate
of conformity which allows the manufacturer to sell vehicles in the U.S.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement the harmonized fuel economy and existing
GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles which provide regulatory
certainty to the marketplace and spur innovation in vehicle technology. These standards were
finalized by the EPA in coordination with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and the EPA is responsible for implementing both the emission standards and significant
aspects of the fuel economy standards.
In FY 2018, the EPA also will oversee compliance with vehicle fuel economy labeling requirements. In
past years, the EPA conducted in-use audits of manufacturer "coast-down" data revealing issues in
42
-------
manufacturer data submitted to the EPA and, as a result, inaccurate fuel economy labels on more
than a million vehicles from several well-known manufacturers.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue implementing the Tier 3 standards for light-duty vehicles
and certifying manufacturers' fleets for vehicle Model Year 2019. The EPA is responsible for
establishing the test procedures needed to measure tailpipe emissions and for verifying
manufacturers' vehicle fuel economy data; as a result, the agency will deploy its laboratory
testing resources to ensure that new cars and trucks are in compliance with the Tier 3 emissions
standards.
On March 15, 2017, the EPA and the Department of Transportation announced that the EPA
intends to reconsider the Final Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022-2025
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards, issued on January 12, 2017. Consistent with the
original schedule, the EPA intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the
appropriateness of the standards no later than April 1, 2018. In order to provide the technical
foundation for an agency decision, the program will undertake an assessment of factors such as
technological feasibility, cost impacts, impacts on air quality and public health, and other relevant
issues for the Administrator's consideration in making a Final Determination. If the Administrator's
Final Determination is that the model year 2022-2025 standards or program should be modified,
the EPA must then make any modifications to the existing rule through a notice-and-comment
rulemaking, including the issuing of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Final Rulemaking.
The EPA will continue working with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on programs to control conventional pollutant
emissions from marine and aircraft engines, respectively. The EPA will work with ICAO on its
program to develop international action plans to reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions from
international civil aviation.
The Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) is the agency's emission modeling system
that estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for criteria
air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. In FY 2018, MOVES will support the agency's
emission control programs, as well as provide critical support to states in their determination
of program needs to meet air quality standards. The agency also will evaluate the schedule for
updates to MOVES.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to provide state and local governments with assistance in
developing SIPs and providing assistance with transportation conformity determinations. The
EPA will continue to work with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the
mobile source emission estimates in their SIPs. The EPA will assist in identifying control options
available and provide guidance, as needed. In addition, the EPA will ensure national consistency
in how conformity determinations are conducted across the U.S. and in the development of
motor vehicle emissions budgets in air quality plans, for use in conformity determinations.
The EPA will continue to provide assistance to state and local transportation and air quality
agencies working on PM2.5 hot-spot analyses. This will help ensure that analyses use the latest
available information and that a measure of consistency exists across the nation. Additionally, the
43
-------
EPA will continue partnering with states to support inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs that focus on in-use vehicles and engines. Basic and/or enhanced I/M testing is currently
being conducted in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from the EPA.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop targeted,
sector-based, and place-based incentives for diesel fleets (including school buses, ports, and
freight) to limit emissions from older, pre-2007 diesel engines not subject to stringent emissions
standards. Because large numbers of people live near ports and are vulnerable to mobile source
diesel emissions, the EPA will focus its efforts on reducing mobile source emissions in and around
ports. According to the EPA's National Port Strategy Assessment report
(https ://www.epa. gov/ports-initi at ive/n at ional-port-strategy-assessment),
approximately 39 million people in the U.S. currently live in close proximity to ports and can be exposed
to air pollution associated with emissions from diesel engines at ports, including particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, ozone, and air toxics. The EPA will focus its efforts on reducing mobile source
emissions in and around ports. The EPA will seek balanced stakeholder advice, through the
Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, on its
approach to reducing these port-related emissions. The EPA also is working with industry to
bring about field testing and emissions testing protocols for a variety of innovative, energy-
efficient, and emissions reducing technologies for the legacy fleet.
In the fuels area, the EPA will continue to implement the RFS program and to carry out several
other actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007, including operating and maintaining of credit trading system
(EMTS). EISA dramatically expanded the renewable fuels provisions of EPAct and requires
additional studies in various areas of renewable fuel use. EISA requires that the EPA set an annual
volume standard for renewable fuels and the 2019 RFS volume requirements are statutorily
required to be promulgated in FY 2018.
EISA also requires the EPA to develop a comprehensive lifecycle GHG methodology to
implement the Act's GHG threshold requirements for the RFS. Producers of new and advanced
biofuels regularly seek to qualify their fuels under RFS and the EPA will continue to apply its
lifecycle analysis to such fuels to evaluate and determine eligibility for the program. The EPA will
reprioritize the evaluations of new fuel products.
In FY 2018, the EPA will maintain oversight of the RFS program and continue to evaluate
compliance with RFS provisions through its moderated transaction system, which is used to track
the creation, trades, and use of billions of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for compliance.
The tracking system handles 4,000 to 6,000 submissions per day, typically averaging more than
20,000 transactions per day, and the generation of more than 1.4 billion RINs per month. RINs are
generated with the production of qualifying renewable fuel and are used to achieve national RFS
programmatic goals of reducing or replacing the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel,
heating oil, or jet fuel.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement its Fuel and Fuel Additive Registration program.
The agency will prioritize its review and decisions for Part 79 registrations.
44
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$17,060.0 / -0.2 FTE) This streamlines funding to the overall program. The agency will
consolidate efforts to ensure compliance with national standards to reduce air pollution from
vehicles, and engines, and fuels. The agency also will assess the capabilities of new and
current vehicle technologies and focus efforts to detect potential violations of clean air
standards in a more efficient manner.
Statutory Authority:
Title II of the Clean Air Act; Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor
Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; Energy Policy Act of 1992; Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU);
Energy Policy Act of 2005; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
45
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
46
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
SI'2.0
so.o
(sr:.o)
I'.nvironmental Program &. Management
S2,759.3
S2,904.0
so.o
(S2,904.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$3,138.2
$3,076.0
$0.0
($3,076.0)
Total Workyears
8.5
10.6
0.0
-10.6
Program Project Description:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the EPA to undertake a variety of
activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. Under the statute,
the EPA studies the health effects of radon, assesses exposure levels, sets an action level, and
advises the public of steps they can take to reduce exposure. For over 29 years, the EPA's radon
program has provided important guidance and significant funding to help states establish their own
programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. This is a mature program
where states have the technical capacity to continue this work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$172.0) This funding change eliminates the Indoor Air: Radon program.
Statutory Authority:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Clean Air Act.
47
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$12,972.9
$13,707.0
$0.0
($13,707.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
N 2MU
$209.0
S 0.0
(S20V.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,233.3
$13,916.0
$0.0
($13,916.0)
Total Workyears
37.6
40.7
0.0
-40.7
Program Project Description:
Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) authorizes the
EPA to conduct and coordinate research on indoor air quality, develop and disseminate information,
and coordinate efforts at the federal, state, and local levels.
The EPA conducts field measurements and assessments and provides technical support for
indoor air quality remediation, when requested.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. This is a mature program
where states have the technical capacity to continue this work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$209.0 / -1.6 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
program.
Statutory Authority:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Clean Air Act.
48
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$8,371.0
$8,427.0
$0.0
($8,427.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S 2.tH>4.5
SI.XM.lt
so.o
(S l.HMM)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
$2,194.2
$1,981.0
$0.0
($1,981.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$12,629.7
$12,239.0
$0.0
($12,239.0)
Total Workyears
52.9
59.1
0.0
-59.1
Program Project Description:
The EPA supports waste site characterization and cleanup by providing field and fixed laboratory
environmental radioanalytical data and technical support, radioanalytical training to state and
federal partners, and by developing new and improved radioanalytical methods. The National
Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama and the
National Center for Radiation Field Operations (NCRFO) in Las Vegas, Nevada provide
analytical and field operation support for radioanalytical and mixed waste testing, quality assurance,
analysis of environmental samples, field radiological support, and field measurement systems and
equipment to support site assessment, cleanup, and response activities in the event of a radiological
accident or incident.
Together, these organizations provide technical support for conducting site-specific radiological
characterizations and cleanups. They also develop guidance for cleaning up Superfund and other
sites that are contaminated with radioactive materials.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
The EPA will explore alternatives to continue to meet its statutory obligation to implement its
regulatory oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) activities at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, as mandated by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act
of 1992.
The EPA also will explore alternatives for its requirement, under the Atomic Energy Act, to
establish health and environmental protection standards for exposures to radiation.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,831.0/ -12.3 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Radiation: Protection program.
49
-------
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by
Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute); Clean Air Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Energy
Policy Act of 1992; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Public Health Service Act; Safe Drinking
Water Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; Clean
Water Act.
50
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science A- Technology
S.i. 'If,. 5
s.i. "-I.0
s v.«
(S -ISxO)
I'.nviionmental Program &. Management
S2.047.1
S2,545.0
S2,257.0
(S288.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$5,763.6
$6,319.0
$5,596.0
($723.0)
Total Workyears
35.5
39.2
31.5
-7.7
Program Project Description:
The National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery,
Alabama and the National Center for Radiation Field Operations (NCRFO) in Las Vegas, Nevada,
provide laboratory analyses, field sampling and analyses, and direct scientific support to respond
to radiological and nuclear incidents. This work includes measuring and monitoring radioactive
materials and assessing radioactive contamination in the environment. This program comprises
direct scientific field and laboratory activities to support preparedness, planning, training, and
procedure development. In addition, selected personnel are members of the EPA's Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT), a component of the agency's emergency response program,
and are trained to provide direct expert scientific and technical assistance in the field. The EPA's
Radiation and Indoor Air program's RERT asset is identified as an agency Critical
Infrastructure/Key Resource.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA's RERT will continue to provide support for federal radiological emergency
response and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). They also will support field
operations with on-site technical support/consultation, fixed laboratory and mobile laboratory
analyses to provide rapid and accurate radionuclide analyses of environmental samples.3
In FY 2018, NAREL and NCRFO will prioritize and adjust the schedule, to develop rapid methods
and techniques for the laboratory analysis of samples and rapid deployment capabilities to ensure
that field teams and laboratory personnel are ready to provide scientific data, analyses, and updated
analytical techniques for radiation emergency response programs across the agency. Both
organizations will maintain core levels of readiness for radiological emergency responses;
participate in the most critical emergency exercises; provide on-site scientific support to state
radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation remediation; participate in the
Protective Action Guidance (PAG) development and application; and respond, as required, to
radiological incidents.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
3
See additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/.
51
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$612.0 / -4.3 FTE) This streamlines personnel and associated payroll for the development
of rapid methods and techniques for the laboratory analysis of samples and rapid
deployment capabilities.
• (+$177.0) This increases support for preparedness work including basic laboratory
analytic functions such as measuring and monitoring radioactive materials and assessing
radioactive contamination in the environment.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970,
84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic
statute); Clean Air Act; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA);
Public Health Service Act (PHSA); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
52
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
53
-------
Forensics Support
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science it Technology
S "
S
SI 0,-1-1-I.I)
(S3. I
-------
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act.
55
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
56
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
s v.mr.2
s Kuv.n
S tU)
(SW.-I'J-.O)
I'.nvironmental Program &. Management
$(>27.1
$970.0
$0.0
($970.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$10,434.3
$11,467.0
$0.0
($11,467.0)
Total Workyears
23.6
23.1
0.0
-23.1
Program Project Description:
The EPA's water security program is implemented through close partnerships with the water
sector, state emergency response and water program officials, and other federal agencies—most
notably DHS, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the intelligence community.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Please note that 5.0 FTE
and associated resources have been provided to the Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery Program for a focused effort to meet the EPA's responsibilities as the water Sector-
Specific Agency (SSA) implementing specific statutory and Presidential directives relating to
homeland security.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10,497.0 / -22.1 FTE) This funding change eliminates the S&T Homeland Security:
Critical Infrastructure Protection program.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§ 1431-1435; Clean Water Act; Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), §§ 301-305.
57
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science A- Technology
S20.S00.2
S 2ft.llll-l.il
S 22.5V.II
(S3.-IfI'll)
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$36,411.9
$35,209.0
$16,457.0
($18,752.0;
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$63,212.1
$61,213.0
$39,054.0
($22,159.0)
Total Workyears
132.4
127.4
113.0
-14.4
Program Project Description:
The EPA has responsibility under Presidential Directives to remediate contaminated environments
affected by incidents such as terrorist attacks, industrial accidents, or natural disasters. The EPA's
disaster-related responsibilities are described by the following three objectives in Homeland
Security Research Program's (HSRP's) Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP): protecting
America's water systems, remediation of indoor and outdoor contaminated areas, and the
development of a nationwide laboratory network with the capability and capacity to analyze for
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) agents during routine monitoring and in
response to terrorist attacks and other disasters.
Funding will provide critical science to fulfill the aforementioned responsibilities, as well as
support the EPA's efforts to help communities prepare for, absorb, and recover from disasters -
safeguarding their economic, environmental, and social well-being. The HSRP will continue to
build upon its record of providing measurable benefits to its partners and stakeholders in EPA's
program offices, as well as develop innovative solutions for decontamination and remediation
efforts. The HSRP will deliver effective tools, methods, information, and guidance to local, state,
and federal decision-makers that will address both critical terrorism-related issues and natural or
manmade disasters.
Research is planned and prioritized based on the needs of end-users of this science,
including Regional On-Scene Coordinators5 (OSCs), water utility companies, and EPA
Regions and programs.6 Priorities also are informed by lessons learned from EPA response
activities, advice from external review boards such as the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
and the Science Advisory Board (SAB), and participation on Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) subcommittees and workgroups. The HSRP collaborates with state, local, and
private sector organizations and key federal agencies7 to prioritize research needs and prevent the
duplication of scientific and technical work.
5 On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) are the federal officials responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and
hazardous substance releases reported to the federal government, https://www.epa.gov/emergencv-response/epas-scene-
6 Water programs, Land & Emergency Management programs, and EPA Regions.
7 Partners include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DoD), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Institute of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Agriculture (DOA).
58
-------
The EPA will serve as the SSA for the water sector and implement specific statutory and
Presidential directives relating to homeland security. The EPA also will coordinate water sector
specific cybersecurity risks with DHS and the sector under Executive Order 13636: Improving
Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.
The EPA also is responsible for managing the network of near real-time stationary and deployable
monitors known as RadNet under the Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National
Response Framework (NRF). The network includes near real-time stationary monitors and
deployable monitors. This network is identified as an EPA Critical Infrastructure/Key Resource
asset.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
HSRP Activities:
The HSRP features three topic areas of research that support the EPA's mission to protect human
health and the environment and fulfill the Agency's legislative mandates.
Characterizing Contamination and Assessing Exposure
During an incident, the EPA oversees site characterization8 and remediation of contaminated water
systems and indoor and outdoor areas. This funding request will enable the EPA to continue to
decrease the time it takes for site characterization, getting people back into their homes faster. In FY
2018, the HSRP activities in this topic will fill critical scientific research gaps by: providing the
science needed for effective sampling strategy development, developing sampling and analysis
methods for biological contaminants, and developing methods to assess exposure pathways for
biological contamination to inform all aspects of the response.
Supporting Characterization of Contamination
In FY 2018, HSRP will develop innovative bio-threat agent sampling and analytical methods for the
Selected Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery document, available on
a publically-accessible website, to support post-incident decisions regarding exposure assessment,
remediation, and re-occupancy.9 The HSRP will conduct studies to support sample strategy options
for characterization after a wide-area biological incident and examine methods and deployment
strategies to reduce the logistical burden of characterization. A tool also will be developed to assist
EPA end users in developing sampling and analysis plans for biological agents, which will
incorporate data quality objectives and increase public confidence in the data and accompanying
decisions. This research will be used by the EPA's OSCs and the Environmental Unit within the
Incident Command Structure to ensure that biological agent characterization supports decisions
within resource and time constraints.
Water System Security and Resilience
As of 2006, there were approximately 160,000 public drinking water utilities and more than 16,000
wastewater utilities in the United States. Roughly 75 percent to 85 percent of the population
8 The process of identifying and quantifying the contaminants in environmental samples of a site to determine the nature and extent of
contamination present.
9 To access, please see: https://www.epa.gov/homeland-security-research/sam
59
-------
receives potable water and sanitary sewer service from these utilities.10 As the lead agency
overseeing the Water Sector, the EPA addresses Water Sector needs identified by the Water Sector
Coordinating Council and the Water Government Coordinating Council's Critical Infrastructure
Partnership Advisory Council.11
Improving Resilience of Water Systems
Recent drinking water system contamination incidents, such as the spill of MCHM12 into the Elk
River in West Virginia, illustrates the connectivity between source water and drinking water systems,
and the dire consequences of contamination: 300,000 people, government, and businesses without
safe water for five days. HSRP will develop methods to decontaminate infrastructure and manage
contaminated water. To support all of the water research efforts outlined above, the HSRP will
conduct field-scale evaluations of water contamination sensors, decontamination methodologies, and
water treatment. Data from these studies are made available to water utilities through the EPA's Water
Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT) and through outreach activities with utilities.
Remediating Wide Areas
A myriad of biological threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences have collectively and dramatically
increased the risk to the nation.13 In FY 2018, the HSRP will continue to address critical scientific
knowledge gaps in responding to and recovering from wide-area biological attack on urban centers
and public areas. This funding request will enable the EPA to continue developing tools, methods,
and technologies for decision-makers to respond to disasters, providing solutions that optimize
cleanup efficacy, minimize cost and recovery time, and unintended consequences. The following
research in this topic will bridge critical gaps for informed decontamination and waste management
decisions for a biological agent incident. The HSRP will continue to develop effective strategies to
complete remediation and re-occupancy activities for rapid return of normalcy in the affected area.
Decision Support Tools for Expedient and Effective Response to a Biological Agent
Decision-making during a large-scale environmental response is extremely complex, especially when
very toxic and/or pathogenic contaminants are present. Decision makers, such as OSCs, need tools to
safely and efficiently identify the best course of action. HSRP will develop tools to integrate data on
the effectiveness of decontamination technologies in contrast with operational and logistical
challenges. Scenarios generated will project the consequences of environmental
response/remediation decisions. For example, HSRP developed the Waste Estimation Support Tool
(WEST) to identify implications of decontamination method selections on the waste generated from
decontamination activities versus removal. WEST supported numerous National Level Exercises
related to radiological, nuclear, and natural disasters enabling realistic waste. The tool will be
expanded in FY 2018 for use in a wide area biological incident.
The HSRP also will develop tools to support other bio-agent response decisions. Research will
target optimization of sampling strategies from a cost-effectiveness perspective and identification
10 R.M. Clark et al. Handbook of Water and Wastewater System Protection, Protecting Critical Infrastructure
11 The Water Sector Coordinating Council is a "self-organized, self-run, and self-governed council" composed of water utilities.
This council facilitates the development of policy impacting the water sector. It was formed as the federal government counterpart
to the Water Sector Coordinating Council and is responsible for interagency coordination of efforts related to the water sector.
12 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol, a chemical used for coal extraction
13 From the source, "A National Blueprint for Biodefense" bipartisan report of the blue ribbon study panel on
biodefense; http://www.biodefensestudy.org/
60
-------
of optimal waste storage and staging sites. This tool will reduce the time responders spend in the
hot zone during a bio-incident, provide a way to use the most recent science on sampling strategies,
and find waste storage and staging sites to facilitate cleanup activities simultaneous to decision-
making regarding waste treatment, transport, and disposal. These tools will be used by OSCs, the
Environmental Unit, and other technical specialists, within the Incident Command, during an
environmental response.
Decontamination Technologies & Methods for Biological Agents
Large research gaps remain in the identification and evaluation of decontamination technologies for
a wide-area CBRN contamination incident. In FY 2018, HSRP will develop approaches to improve
the capacity to conduct large-scale bio-agent cleanup including methods that are widely-available to
local, state, and federal responders, such as municipal equipment (e.g., street sweepers) and
commercial off-the-shelf methods for effective distribution of decontaminants (e.g., humidifiers).
Research to scale-up technologies for wide-area use and develop scalable approaches to manage
contaminated waste for application to a biological incident will continue specifically focusing on how
to manage contaminated vehicles. The cost and logistics of disposing anthrax-contaminated vehicles
may overwhelm local, state, and federal recovery efforts. In FY 2018, HSRP will study the fate and
transport of spores to inform methods for decontamination and options for vehicle waste
management. All methods developed are transitioned to state, local, and federal responders through
guidance developed by HSRP's Program Office Partners.14
Radiation Monitoring:
The RadNet fixed monitoring network provides near real-time radiation monitoring coverage near
each of the 100 most populous U.S. cities as well as expanded geographic coverage for a total of
139 monitoring sites. In FY 2018, the agency will operate the RadNet air monitoring network.
Fixed stations will operate with essential maintenance and, should there be an emergency, in
conjunction with available deployable monitors following a radiological incident. The RadNet air
monitoring network will provide the agency, first responders, and the public with access to data,
thereby informing officials' ability to make decisions about protecting public health and the
environment during and after an incident. The EPA will continue to operate its fixed and deployable
monitoring systems with essential maintenance. Additionally, the data will be used by scientists to
better characterize the effect of a radiological incident.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,540.0 / -4.0 FTE) This changes the EPA's timeline to carry out its mandates and
develop strategies and methods for characterizing, decontaminating, and managing waste
from an intentional or unintentional release of chemical and radiological agents that result
from currently understood threats.
14 Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Emergency Management and Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery
61
-------
• (-$1,187.0 / -0.3 FTE) This change refocuses resources from the development of tools to
support resilience of water systems, including response to contamination incidents,
and evaluation of sensors to support detection of contamination.
• (-$780.0 / -1.0 FTE) This change reflects a decrease of personnel and contract dollars to
keep RadNet capabilities current with technology.
• (+$1,100.0 / +5.0 FTE) These resources and FTE have been reallocated to the Homeland
Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program for a focused effort to meet the
EPA's responsibilities as the water Sector-Specific Agency (SSA) implementing specific
statutory and Presidential directives relating to homeland security.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Clean Air Act, §§ 102, 103; Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 104-106; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§
1431-1435, 1442; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, §§ 1411-1412; Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 10;
Oil Pollution Act (OPA); Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Clean Water
Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA); Food Safety Modernization Act
(FSMA), §§ 203, 208.
62
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$4,987.0
$5,336.0
$4,986.0
($350.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
N 551.0
$551.0
S500.0
(S 51.0)
Building and Facilities
$7,366.2
$6,663.0
$6,176.0
($487.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$833.6
$1,084.0
$542.0
($542.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,737.8
$13,634.0
$12,204.0
($1,430.0)
Total Workyears
8.1
12.2
12.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports activities to ensure that the EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in
the event of an emergency. These efforts also protect the capability of the EPA's vital laboratory
infrastructure assets. Specifically, funds within this appropriation support security needs for the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the agency will continue to provide enhanced physical security for the NVFEL and
its employees. This funding supports the incremental cost of security enhancements required as
part of an agency security assessment review.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$51.0) This change reduces the security budget at the agency's National Vehicle and Fuel
Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL).
Statutory Authority:
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Homeland Security Act of 2002;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
63
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
64
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$83,883.2
$83,790.0
$70,069.0
($13,721.0)
Science A- Technology
S2.M2.f>
.N.i. «#.?.«
S 2. ~25.0
(SJiS.O)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$14,968.1
$13,776.0
$8,213.0
($5,563.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$101,743.9
$100,649.0
$81,007.0
($19,642.0)
Total Workyears
441.5
478.8
451.1
-27.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) program promotes the use of
quality environmental information for informing decisions, improving management, documenting
performance, and measuring success, which supports the agency's mission to protect public health
and the environment. Science and Technology (S&T) resources for the EPA's IT/DM program fund
the following activities: Quality Program,15 EPA libraries, and One EPA Web.
The Quality Program ensures that all environmentally-related data activities performed by or for
the agency will result in the production of data that is of adequate quality to support specific
decisions or actions. In order for this data to be used with a high degree of certainty by its intended
users, its quality must be known and documented. The Quality Program provides Quality Assurance
(QA) policies, training, oversight and technical support to assist the EPA's programs in the
implementation of their quality management systems which are required by the EPA Quality Policy
CIO 2105.0 for all environmental data operations. The Quality Program also oversees the
implementation of the EPA Information Quality Guidelines.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the agency will focus S&T resources for this program to maintaining the EPA's
national libraries and the One EPA Web, which supports hosting for all agency websites and Web
pages. The Quality Program will provide limited technical support to all of the EPA's programs
and laboratories for the implementation of the EPA Quality Policies, Procedures and Standards.
The Quality Program also will continue to provide necessary QA training courses such as
mandatory QA training in the agency's online training portal for all employees, a QA training for
managers and staff, and a QA in contracts training.
In FY 2018, the Quality Program will complete at least six Quality Management Plan reviews and
conduct at least two Quality System Assessments of the agency's programs. In addition, the
program will continue to provide targeted technical support to the EPA's organizations conducting
internal audits of their conformance with the Field Operations Group Guidelines. The oversight
15 More information about the EPA Quality Program can be found at http://www.epa.eov/qualitv.
65
-------
activities assist with environmental decision-making and assures the reliability of the data.
Additionally, the Quality Program will provide oversight of the EPA's Information Quality
Guidelines and facilitate the development of agency responses to the public's request for correction
of the agency's disseminated information.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2017 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$358.0/ -3.6 FTE) The funding change streamlines technical support for conducting
quality assurance oversight, training, policy development, and support for agency-wide
quality activities.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act
(CWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA);
Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA); Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA); Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
66
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
67
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Environmental Program & Management
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Science X iccltnoloxy
sr>s.:o'J.o
Sosj.w.n
SIMM
Building and Facilities
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
Science & Technology (S&T) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program
fund rent, utilities, and security. This program also supports centralized administrative activities
and support services, including health and safety, environmental compliance and management,
facilities maintenance and operations, energy conservation, sustainable buildings programs, and
space planning. Funding is allocated for such services among the major appropriations for the
agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to invest to reconfigure the EPA's workspaces, enabling the
agency to release office space and reduce long-term rent costs, consistent with HR 446516, the
Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016. Since FY 2012 the EPA has released over 517
thousand square feet of office space nationwide, resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of
nearly $20 million across all appropriations. These savings help offset the EPA's escalating rent
and security costs. Currently planned consolidations will allow the EPA to release another
estimated 336 thousand square feet of office space. For FY 2018, the agency is requesting $28.80
million for rent, $19.53 million for utilities, and $14.13 million for security in the S&T
appropriation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
16 For additional information, refer to: https://www.c011gress.g0v/bill/.l 14th-congress/house-bill/4465. Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act of 2016.
68
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$130.0) This change reflects an increase to support facility operations to meet basic needs
and to fund cost escalation for contracts that support activities like custodial, landscaping,
and warehouse activities at the EPA's research and development facilities and laboratories.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
69
-------
Workforce Reshaping
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
so.o
SO.O
N IO.VVxO
.S IO.VVxO
I'.nvironmental Program &. Management
so.o
so.o
$46,719.0
$46,719.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$0.0
$0.0
$10,437.0
$10,437.0
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
$68,151.0
$68,151.0
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Science and Technology (S&T) resources for the workforce reshaping program support
organizational restructuring efforts throughout the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To help
achieve its mission, the EPA will develop, review, and analyze mission requirements and
implement options to effectively align and redistribute the agency's workforce based on program
priorities, resource reallocation, and technological advances.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective workforce reshaping is critical to the EPA's ability to accomplish its mission. The EPA
will be examining our statutory functions and processes to eliminate inefficiencies and streamline
our processes. Primary criteria will include effectiveness and accountability, as the EPA is focused
on greater value and real results. These analyses will likely create a need to significantly reshape
the workforce. The agency anticipates the need to offer voluntary early out retirement authority
(VERA) and voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP), and potentially relocation expenses, as
part of the workforce reshaping effort. The use of VERA/VSIP will increase voluntary attrition and
enable more focused support for the agency's highest priority work.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$10,995.0) In support of the reprioritization of agency activities, this increase will
support:
o Voluntary early out retirement authority (VERA)
o Voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP)
o Workforce support costs for relocation of employees as we realign work
assignments.
70
-------
Statutory Authority:
5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2) includes the statutory VERA provisions for employees covered by the Civil
Service Retirement System; 5 U.S.C. 8414(b)(1)(B) includes the statutory VERA provisions for
employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System; Section 1313(b) of the Chief
Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296, approved November 25, 2002) authorized
the VSIP option under regulations issued by OPM, as codified in Sections 3521 to 3525 of Title 5,
United States Code (U.S.C.).
71
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
72
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
SJ."2.I
S.\ 122.0
S 2.2'-1.0
(S K4K.0)
I'.nviionmental Program &. Management
S57,708.1
S57,699.0
S48,568.0
(S9,ni.o)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$61,480.2
$60,821.0
$50,842.0
($9,979.0)
Total Workyears
399.9
418.7
416.5
-2.2
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Pesticide Program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that
pesticides already in commerce are safe. As directed by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (F1FRA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, as well as the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Extension Act of 2012 (known as PRIA3), the EPA is responsible for registering and re-evaluating
pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides,
children, and other sensitive populations. To make regulatory decisions and establish tolerances
(maximum allowable pesticide residues on food and feed) for food use pesticides and for residential
or non-occupational use, the EPA must find the pesticide safe, including cumulative and aggregate
risks, and ensure extra protection for children. The agency must balance the risks and benefits of
other uses.
The EPA's Chemical Safety, Pollution Prevention, and Pesticide program operates two laboratories
that support the goal of protecting human health and the environment through diverse analytical
testing and analytical method development and validation efforts. The laboratories also provide a
variety of technical services to the EPA, other federal and state agencies, Tribal nations, and other
organizations.
EPA's Microbiology Laboratory
The Microbiology Laboratory develops and standardizes product efficacy test methodology for
public health pesticides (i.e., antimicrobial pesticides) and generates data to support programmatic
decision-making. Antimicrobial pesticides are an essential tool in combating human pathogenic
microorganisms on environmental surfaces, including treating surfaces contaminated with new and
emerging pathogens.
The Microbiology Laboratory leads the federal effort on designing and standardizing ways to test
important infectious agents such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) and Candida auris. Deaths
related to C. difficile (hospital-acquired infections) continue to increase due in part to a stronger
germ strain, and have now reached -14,000 deaths per year. Almost half of the infections occur in
73
-------
people younger than 65, but more than 90 percent of the deaths occur in people 65 and older.17 The
organism has been shown to persist in the hospital environment and disinfectants are essential to
reduce disease transmission. Thirteen cases of Candida auris, a serious and sometimes fatal fungal
infection which is emerging globally, were recently identified in the United States according to the
CDC. The laboratory is working with this new microbe to develop a test method and efficacy data
to ensure guidance to hospitals is adequate for environmental cleaning and disinfection. Any new
emerging human or animal pathogen (H1N1, Clostridium difficile, MRS A, etc.) represents a new
method development challenge for evaluating disinfectants. The goal is to standardize the
procedures to ensure consistent data from the testing community. Regulatory guidance will be
updated and a data call-in notice for all current registrations for C. difficile will be evaluated to
ensure the efficacy of the products. The development of guidance for registering products against
Candida auris is under development.
The laboratory also is leading efforts to evaluate an internationally harmonized efficacy test
method, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) quantitative test
method, as well as methods for Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus biofilms, feline calcivirus,
Mycobacterium, and a new quantitative test method for evaluating hospital disinfectant towelette
formulations. Draft guidance for registering claims against biofilms was issued in FY 2016 for
review and comment. The laboratory analyzed data from two collaborative studies in FY 2016-
the towelette method and the virus component of the OECD method. Following data analysis,
methods also will be adopted or placed under review at standard-setting organizations such as the
American Society for Testing and Materials or Association of Official Analytical Communities.
Methods are posted at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/methods/atmpindex.htm.
EPA 's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory provides technical review of enforcement analytical methods
and method validation and serves as a third-party confirmation laboratory. In addition, the
laboratory provides analytical and technical support to various Regional Offices in enforcement
cases, such as evaluating possible adverse effects of pesticide use, including contaminated,
deficient, or illegally labeled products. The laboratory develops and validates multi-residue
pesticide analytical methods to monitor and enforce agricultural uses of pesticides, and to analyze
for pesticide residues in water, soil, bees, crops, and feeds. Multi-residue methods are a quicker and
more cost effective "one-stop-shop" method for multiple (100+) pesticides, based on their mode of
action and chemical properties. The laboratory is leading a team of chemists from the EPA's
Pesticide Programs, Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, and
Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency in the update of the agency's 860.1360 Residue
Chemistry Guidelines for Multi-residue Methods. The new guidelines, when approved as a
replacement for the current guideline (written in 1987), also will enable the submission of multi-
residue methods for use in enforcement and tolerance setting, based on more cost effective and
more reliable techniques and technologies.
The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory works to standardize analytical methods to provide the
agency with scientifically valid data for use in risk assessment, such as for determining the
permeability of agricultural tarps to fumigants. This work assists the EPA in determining potential
17 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0306 ediff.html
74
-------
buffer zone credit for fumigated fields and assists crop growers with information to help determine
the best tarps for their practices. The laboratory continues to support the EPA by reviewing data
submitted to the agency for buffer zone credit request of newly manufactured tarps.
The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory also operates the EPA National Pesticide Standard
Repository (NPSR), which collects and maintains pesticide standards (samples of pure active
ingredients or technical grade active ingredients for pesticides). It distributes these standards to the
EPA and other federal, state, and Tribal laboratories involved in pesticide use enforcement.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the agency will protect human health by ensuring the availability of appropriate
analytical methods and techniques for analyzing pesticide residues in food, feed, water, soil, and
bees (and their products) and ensuring their suitability for monitoring pesticide residues and
enforcing tolerances. The Microbiology laboratory will continue with efficacy testing of
antimicrobials, including C. difficile claims; complete current method development activities;
present data to the international community on the OECD collaborative data and determine the
course of action with respect to the method; issue final guidance for biofilm claims following
review and comment; issue revised guidance for C. difficile, develop efficacy data and guidance
for Candida auris claims; and initiate a collaborative study with Trichophyton. In addition, the
laboratory will assist with efforts to formulate a new regulatory schematic for evaluating claims
based on use of a disinfectant hierarchy for establishing efficacy claims for antimicrobials. Post-
registration testing of antimicrobials enables the agency to remove ineffective products from the
market. New methods enable the regulated community to register new products for use against
emerging pathogens.
Additionally, the EPA will: (a) continue to develop improved analytical methods using state of the
art instruments to replace outdated methods, thus increasing laboratory efficiency and accuracy of
the data; (b) continue to provide analytical support to fill in data gaps for the Pesticide Programs'
risk assessment and for Section 18 emergency exemptions, and to perform studies for use in risk
mitigation; (c) continue to provide analytical assistance and technical advice to all Regional Offices
in their enforcement cases; (d) continue operation of the NPSR; (e) continue to verify that
antimicrobial pesticides are properly formulated; and (f) validate, optimize, and standardize a
method to determine permeability of agricultural tarps for fumigants.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$848.0 / -1.3 FTE) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees.
75
-------
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), §408.
76
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$39,651.4
$37,222.0
$31,930.0
($5,292.0)
Science A- Technology
s5
$2,324.0
S 2.IV.\0
(SI 20.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$41,388.9
$39,546.0
$34,125.0
($5,421.0)
Total Workyears
280.4
269.3
268.4
-0.9
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will also not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment," as
"any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide."18
In compliance with FIFRA, the EPA conducts risk assessments using the latest scientific methods
to determine the risks that pesticides pose to human health and ecological effects on plants, animals,
and ecosystems that are not the targets of the pesticide. The agency's significant regulatory
decisions are posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and to
allow stakeholders, including at-risk populations, to be engaged in decisions that affect their
environment. Under FIFRA, the EPA must determine that a pesticide also will not cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The EPA must determine that food and residential
uses of pesticides are safe. For other risk concerns, the EPA must balance the risks of the pesticides
with benefits provided from the use of the product. To avoid unreasonable risks, the EPA may
impose risk mitigation measures such as modifying use rates or application methods, restricting
uses, or denying some or all uses. In some regulatory decisions, the EPA may determine that
uncertainties in the risk determination need to be reduced and may require monitoring of
environmental conditions, such as effects on water sources or the development and submission of
additional laboratory or field study data by the pesticide registrant.
In addition to FIFRA responsibilities, the agency has responsibilities under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).19 Under the ESA, the EPA must ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions will not
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat or result in jeopardy to the continued
existence of species listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened or endangered. Where risks are identified, the EPA must
18 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Sections 2 and 3, Definitions, Registration of Pesticides (7 U.S.C. §§ 136,
136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/0ppOOOOl/reg11lati11g/laws.l1t111.
19 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 Sections 7(a)(1) and 7 (a)(2); Federal Agency Actions and Consultations (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 internet site:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws~policies/sectioii~7.htail
77
-------
work with the FWS and NMFS in a consultation process to ensure these pesticide registrations also
will meet the ESA standard.
The national program laboratories of the EPA's Pesticide Programs provide a diverse range of
environmental data that are used by the EPA to make informed regulatory decisions. The Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory and the Microbiology Laboratory each provide critical laboratory testing and
support activities to assist the decision-making processes of the agency. The laboratories develop
efficacy data, and validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure that the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the EPA,
and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the
environment.
EPA's Microbiology Laboratory
The Microbiology Laboratory ensures that pesticides deliver intended results by evaluating efficacy
and registrant claims. The laboratory provides analyses that support the development of efficacy
data for pesticides used for the decontamination of buildings (such as chlorine dioxide), supports
research on methods and rapid detection assays, and evaluates commercial products used for the
remediation and decontamination of sites contaminated with biothreat agents such as Bacillus
anthracis (commonly known as anthrax). Work conducted by the laboratory led to a regulatory
framework for licensing products against Bacillus anthracis as outlined in Pesticide Registration
Notice 2008-2. Several products are now registered against this biothreat agent. The Microbiology
Laboratory is the only EPA laboratory with a select agent registration under the CDC's select agent
program, enabling the laboratory to receive, transfer, and work with Bacillus anthracis.
EPA 's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
The Analytical Chemistry Branch laboratory supports the work of the EPA to determine the
ecological risks that pesticides pose to ecosystems, plants, and animals, such as bees, that are not
the targets of the pesticide by bringing new analytical methods online and using in-house expertise
to develop and validate multi-residue pesticide analytical methods. Additional benefits are gained
by transferring technologies, such as the multi-residue methods, to other EPA organizations and
state laboratories for use in monitoring pesticide residues in the environment and ecological
systems, and the standard method for testing permeability of agricultural tarps to fumigants, which
is currently used by tarp manufacturers to measure the efficiency of newly developed and
manufactured tarps.
The Analytical Chemistry laboratory will continue to provide analytical support to fill data gaps
for the pesticide program's risk assessments and for section 18 emergency exemptions, and to
perform studies for use in risk mitigation. Support includes working collaboratively with the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) to identify the presence of pesticides in rivers and streams across
the nation. These data will allow USGS and the EPA to study the patterns of exposure of
agricultural and urban ecosystems to pesticides. The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory also
provides analytical assistance and technical advice to all the EPA Regional Offices for use in
enforcement cases and reviews and validates analytical methods or studies submitted as part of a
pesticide registration.
78
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Microbiology Laboratory is working with the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate
various materials (wood, concrete, fabric, tile, etc.) for recovery (e.g., extracting the microbe of
interest) of high consequence animal pathogens (foot and mouth disease, avian influenza, etc.) and
the effect of decon technologies (including National Stockpile chemicals) on these viruses. The
goal is to develop a methodology for evaluating antimicrobial pesticides against these pathogenic
agents. These types of hard and porous materials are found at sites requiring remediation due to
contamination with non-spore forming high consequence animal pathogens that can have a negative
impact on the economy. Particular interest to the Microbiology Laboratory are methods for
evaluating decontamination technologies for avian influenza. Outbreaks due to migratory birds
have affected the poultry industry in the United States.
The Analytical Chemistry laboratory will continue to focus on analytical method development and
validations as well as special studies to address specific short-term, rapid-turnaround priority issues.
The laboratory also will continue to provide technical and analytical assistance to the Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Program and the EPA Regional Offices in support of their enforcement
cases. Analytical support will continue in the fifth year of a multi-year multi agency (EPA and
USGS) project to assess the quality of rivers and streams across the U.S. The lab will continue to
support pesticide registration review and U.S. tarp manufacturers by reviewing the permeability
data of fumigants through newly manufactured tarps. In an effort to reduce emission of soil
fumigants into the air, the agency established certain buffer zone credits based on the tarps'
permeability: the lower the permeability of a tarp, the lower the emission of fumigants into the air
and more fumigant remains in the soil for pest control. Thus, the EPA can allow a greater buffer
zone reduction credit. The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory will continue to understand the effects
on pollinators as part of the program's existing registration and registration review processes.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$129.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Endangered Species Act (ESA).
79
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$7,727.5
$6,074.0
$5,028.0
($1,046.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S 4 2-.4
$570.0
N 52'M
(S Jj.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,154.9
$6,644.0
$5,555.0
($1,089.0)
Total Workyears
42.0
46.5
46.3
-0.2
Program Project Description:
The Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's national program laboratories make significant
contributions to help the agency realize the value of pesticides.
EPA 's Microbiology Laboratory
The Microbiology Laboratory evaluates and develops data to support Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (F1FRA) Section 18 Emergency Exemption requests to combat
emerging or novel pathogens such as prions, new use sites (such as those colonized by biofilms,
including sinks, drains, and water lines) and conducts applied research on new analytical methods
for novel antimicrobials. In many cases of new claims or pathogens, there is no standard method
for determining efficacy of a pesticidal product. For example, it is recognized that microorganisms
that exist as biofilm communities may be more resistant to disinfection. The laboratory has
technical expertise managing unusual pathogens for which registration of a pesticide might not be
economically viable under FIFRA Section 3 Registration. The evaluation of these requests is
necessary in order to make pesticides available in the marketplace for these unusual or emergency
situations. Examples include the H1N1 virus, prions, foot and mouth disease, Severe Acute
Respiratory (SAR) infections, C. difficile, and C. auris. The Microbiological Laboratory also
evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobials to allow the EPA to remove ineffective products from the
market. In addition, the Microbiology Laboratory provides technical support on numerous non-
standard protocols for antimicrobials, including: foggers, chemicals used for inactivation of prions,
use of citric acid for control of foot and mouth disease, and evaluation of requests from other federal
agencies to use paraformaldehyde for decontamination of laboratory environments.
EPA's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
The Analytical Chemistry Branch Laboratory works to benefit specialty crop growers by
developing more cost-effective and efficient ways to establish tolerances (maximum residue
levels). This is accomplished through the United States Department of Agriculture's Inter-Regional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Crop Group Validation, which focuses on the development of
analytical methods and analysis of crop samples to determine if, when applied at the same rate,
pesticide residues found in crops from same crop groups are similar. The data will be used to
determine whether a representative crop from a crop group can be used as a model to establish
80
-------
tolerances for all the members of the crop group. Such a validation would support the concept of
crop grouping being accepted in the Codex20 and by the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development. Over 500 samples have been analyzed to date in support of this project. The
laboratory also provided analytical support to the IR-4 Global Study to evaluate the influence of
spatial variation between various geographic locations around the world on the level of pesticide
residues in field grown tomatoes when subjected to standardized application parameters and rates.
Crop grouping provides growers, especially growers that produce minor and specialty crops, with
pesticide tools that otherwise would not be available due to the cost of generating field trial data.
They allow for an efficient use of private resources and public tax dollars while ensuring a safe
food supply.
The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory efforts and resulting success in standardizing the fumigation
tarp protocol through the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) international
provides tarp manufacturers with a method to test their newly manufactured tarps before submitting
the data to the agency to request buffer zone credit21 to reduce the required buffer zone, when
fumigant is used as pest control in the field.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will realize the benefits of pesticides by operating the National Pesticide
Standard Repository and conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials. As the
recognized source for expertise in pesticide analytical method development, the EPA's laboratories
will continue to provide quality assurance and technical support and training to the EPA's Regional
Offices, state laboratories, and other federal agencies that implement FIFRA.
The Microbiology Laboratory will continue to evaluate Section 18 emergency exemptions and
novel protocol requests for new uses and novel pathogens. The Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
will continue its work with the IR-4 Global Study and the IR-4 Crop Group Validation Study.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$43.0 / -0.2 FTE) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), §408.
20 http://www.who.inl/foodstifelv/tireas work/food-standard/en/
21http://www. epa.gov/soil-fumigarits/calculating-buffer-zones-giiide-applicators
81
-------
Program Area: Research: Air and Energy
82
-------
Research: Air and Energy
Program Area: Research: Air and Energy
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
situ.-itr.v
.S VI. 'J 1.0
S.W.5V2.0
(Sfil.l.W.O)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 04.407.9
S91.731.0
S30.592.0
(S61.139.0)
Total Workyears
274.3
287.8
153.8
-134.0
Program Project Description:
The Air and Energy (AE) research program provides scientific information to EPA program and
Regional Offices. The overall research effort is organized around six integrated and
transdisciplinary national research programs. Each program is guided by a Strategic Research
Action Plan (StRAP) that is the result of a collaboration with, and supportive of, the EPA's
programs and Regional Offices.
The resources requested for AE will support the analysis of research data and publication of
scientific journal articles to disseminate findings. The AE research program relies on successful
partnerships with other EPA research programs, offices, academic and industry researchers, state,
local, and private sector organizations, as well as key federal agencies.
Recent Accomplishments:
The following are examples of recent accomplishments:
• Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Air Pollution Study
In 2004, EPA awarded a Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grant to the
University of Washington to study how air pollution affects the development of
cardiovascular disease in healthy people. The MESA study investigated cardiovascular
impacts among more than 6,000 participants over a 10-year period. This study determined
that long-term everyday exposure of air pollution to people accelerates the progression of
coronary artery disease. The research supports the investigation of health effects of air
pollution under the Clean Air Act. The results are significant from both clinical practice
and policy perspectives, emphasizing long-term prevention of exposure to air pollution as
a strategy to mitigate or delay the onset of cardiovascular disease. This product provides
key data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to
prevent and reduce emissions of pollutants, assess effects associated with pollutants, and
make informed decisions to protect public health.
• Village Green II Deployment
The EPA developed an innovative prototype air and weather measurement system, called
the Village Green Station, to provide new ways for communities to learn about local air
quality. Through partnerships with cities and other organizations, the EPA installed seven
83
-------
new stations nationally and internationally in FY 2016. The stations are designed and
engineered to incorporate sensor technology into standalone park bench structures. This
project advances air pollution measurement technology to provide quality-assured data to
the public in a real-time, transparent, and accessible way. This project further supports the
EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment by furthering public
outreach, supplementing the regulatory monitoring network to explore local-scale pollution
trends, and increasing data available for research purposes.
• Community-Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) Update
As air pollution emissions are released locally and globally, they circulate through
changing weather patterns in the atmosphere. Emissions are distributed in the areas where
they are released and across the U.S., affecting the air Americans breathe. The EPA
released an updated version of the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model2 (CMAQ),
allowing users in states, regional planning organizations, and international organizations
to simulate air quality in and around metropolitan areas, identify air pollution hot spots,
and develop potential remediation strategies. The system links meteorological and
emissions models to simultaneously model multiple air pollutants, which helps air quality
managers determine the best pollution management strategies for their communities,
regions, and states. For example, CMAQ provided data to inform state and local actions to
maintain and achieve clean air, to avoid an estimated 2,000 premature deaths per year and
50,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children nation-wide.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The AE program features five related topic areas that include research projects that support the
EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment and fulfill the agency's legislative
mandates. The AE program will attempt to measure progress toward environmental health goals,
and translate research results to inform communities and individuals about measures to reduce
impacts of air pollution. In addition, research personnel will analyze existing research data and
publish scientific journal articles to disseminate findings associated with these data.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) for the AE program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In
addition, the EPA meets with the BOSC and Science Advisory Board (SAB) annually for input on
topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and impact. The
EPA will be advised on its strategic research direction as part of the review of the Research and
Development program's recently-released StRAPs.
The EPA collaborates with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White
House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess research performance. The
EPA supports the interagency Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment, Measuring the
Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) efforts.
23 For more information, http://wwwxiiiacniiodel.org/
84
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$18,582.0 / -47.3 FTE) This funding change eliminates climate change research.
• (-$31,987.0 / -86.7 FTE) This funding change reduces air quality research.
• (-$10,570.0) This eliminates funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program
for FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act; Title II of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA); Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), § 102; Pollution Prevention Act
(PPA); Global Change Research Act of 1990.
85
-------
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
86
-------
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S
S ltr,2MU)
N M.520M
(SJ.S, '10.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 14.874.9
c-i
K
s
S68.520.0
(S3 8.710.0)
Total Workyears
406.5
403.0
266.4
-136.6
Program Project Description:
The Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research program is developing cost-effective,
sustainable solutions to current, emerging, and long-term water resource challenges for complex
chemical and microbial contaminants.
The SSWR research program uses a systems approach to develop scientific and technological
solutions for the protection of human health and watersheds. The research is being conducted in
partnership with other EPA programs, federal and state agencies, academia, non-governmental
agencies, public and private stakeholders, and the scientific community.
The SSWR research projects are organized into four interrelated research topics:
• Watershed Sustainability: Assessing and synthesizing the necessary environmental,
economic, and social information of watersheds and aquatic resources from local to national
scales, to determine the condition, future prospects, and restoration potential of the Nation's
watersheds and aquatic resources.
• Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms: Conducting nutrient research efforts in lakes,
rivers, streams, and estuaries across media (water, land, air) and scales (temporal and
spatial).
• Green Infrastructure (GI): Developing innovative tools, technologies, and strategies for
managing stormwater and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) today and over the long- term.
Research focuses on the costs and benefits of using GI to control stormwater runoff and
CSOs at multiple scales (e.g., from local scales, such as parking lots, to an entire watershed).
• Water Systems (Drinking Water, Wastewater, Water Reuse): Developing innovative
tools and technologies and providing technical support for improving the treatment of water
and wastewater. Research also focuses on water quality issues in drinking water distribution
systems and premise plumbing. Efforts under this topic also promote economic water reuse
and the recovery of water, energy, and nutrient resources through municipal water services
and whole system assessment tools. Research results are translated into tools and training
for small water system operators through workshops and webinars.
87
-------
The overall research effort is organized around six integrated and transdisciplinary national
research programs. Each program is guided by a Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP) that is
the result of a collaboration with, and supportive of, the EPA's program offices and regions.
Recent accomplishments include:
Recreational Water Quality
Advances in the performance of quantitative, molecular methods for waterborne pathogens to
provide more robust, same-day notifications of fecal contamination in recreational waters. Method
performance and standardization, including developing standards for use by stakeholders, has been
evaluated in eight midwestern rivers, the National Rivers and Streams Assessment, the 2015
National Coastal Condition Assessment study, and in a multi-laboratory survey examining U.S.
coastal and inland surface waters.
Harmful Algal Blooms
SSWR developed and released the Water Quality Assessment Tool (WQAT), in conjunction with
NASA Stennis Space Center. WQAT is a software tool that facilitates and simplifies the extraction
and analysis of satellite data. WQAT's intended users are the Water Program, Regions, States,
tribes, drinking water treatment facilities, state health departments, recreational water managers,
and state water quality managers.
Green Infrastructure Toolkit
The Green Infrastructure Models and Tools toolkit is a webpage of five EPA green infrastructure
(GI) models and tools, along with communication materials. The toolkit is being used by the EPA's
regions to train their staff and for outreach to states.
Flint, MI Technical Assistance
The agency's research and development program's researchers provided their expertise and
participated in the EPA's Flint Drinking Water Task Force to assist the State of Michigan and the
City of Flint with lead contamination and chlorine residual challenges in their drinking water
system. In coordination with the EPA's Task Force, the city and state, the agency's involvement
included project development, oversight, and implementation for distribution system monitoring
for disinfectant and disinfection byproducts, lead pipe scale evaluations, pipe loop rigs for corrosion
control testing, assessment of chlorine residual levels in the distribution system and the
development of a flushing optimization plan. The agency's research and development program
contribution played a large part in helping to raise chlorine residuals by flushing hydrants, as well
as determining where chlorine sampling would take place. The assistance provided by the agency's
research and development program is helping Flint move towards a solution to their drinking water
crisis. The agency's researchers are currently developing sampling protocols and exposure risk
assessment models for lead in drinking water for use by stakeholders.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In order to achieve its goals, the SSWR program has focused its four topic areas on specific research
objectives as outlined below.
88
-------
Watershed Sustainability
The EPA will continue research on waterborne pathogens to improve recreational water quality. A
collaborative, cross-agency economic analysis will continue to develop tools for determining
changes in value associated with changes in water quality, ecosystem services of water bodies, and
watershed integrity.
Nutrients
The EPA will investigate health impacts from exposure to harmful algal/cyanobacteria toxins.
Research also focuses on monitoring and optimizing drinking water treatment systems and
developing methods to predict, monitor, and characterize blooms with innovative technology.
Research will continue on nutrient-enhanced acidification and hypoxia in economically important
coastal fisheries (e.g., Pacific Northwest and New England), and nutrient and hypoxia modeling of
the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico.
Green Infrastructure
The EPA will continue leading research for core support of the Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM) and National Stormwater Calculator to help states and utilities address stormwater and
wastewater infrastructure needs, and for risk assessments on stormwater capture for augmenting
water supplies.
Water Systems (Drinking Water, Wastewater, Water Reuse)
Research will focus on delivering safe drinking water (e.g., distribution systems and premise
plumbing, lead and other chemical or microbial contaminants, disinfection by-products, and
biofilm) assessing the health and environmental impacts of known and emerging risks of individual
and groups of chemical and biological contaminants (e.g., per- and poly-fluorinated substances) in
drinking water sources, drinking/wastewater treatment, and water reuse.
Water reuse will be an essential component of a sustainable water supply by mitigating water
withdrawals from surface water and groundwater sources. Resource recovery and water reuse offer
opportunities for collaboration with other federal agencies, industry, and international
organizations to expedite the development and market introduction of cost effective technologies.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) for the SSWR program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency.
In addition, the EPA will meet regularly with both the BOSC and SAB to seek their input on topics
related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and impact. This
includes advising the EPA on its strategic research direction as part of the review of the research
and development program's recently released StRAPs.
The agency collaborates with several science agencies and the research community to assess our
research performance. For example, the EPA is partnering with the National Institutes of Health,
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and others. The EPA also works with the White House's Office of Science and
89
-------
Technology Policy and supports the interagency Science and Technology in America's
Reinvestment-Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science
(STAR METRICS) effort.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,098.0) This eliminates funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program for
FY 2018.
• (-$20,372.0 / -79.2 FTE) This streamlines funding to the program for research related to
technical support and site-specific support; communication and technology transfer efforts;
translation of nutrient modeling and monitoring data; and research assisting states to
prioritize watersheds and differentiating sources of nutrient overloading.
• (-$13,240.0 / -57.4 FTE) This refocuses resources from research on recovering resources
(e.g. nutrients) from wastewater, transformative water systems and life cycle analysis and
research on advancing water systems technologies for FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), § 1442(a)(1); Clean Water Act, §§ 101(a)(6), 104, 105;
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA);
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), § 203; Title II of Ocean Dumping
Ban Act of 1988 (ODBA); Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); Wet Weather Water
Quality Act of 2000; Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA);
National Invasive Species Act; Coastal Zone Amendments Reauthorization Act (CZARA); Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act; Endangered Species Act (ESA); North
American Wetlands Conservation Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
90
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
91
-------
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
Science A- li'cluioloxy
SJ5-IJ
S I.W.
S 5-l.2II.il
(S K5.-/M.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$315.5
$319.0
$320.0
$1.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$13,622.3
$14,005.0
$5,655.0
($8,350.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$169,149.2
$154,696.0
$60,689.0
($94,007.0)
Total Workyears
460.3
476.3
265.1
-211.2
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) program supplies research to support
regulatory activities, including protocol development for the National Contingency Plan, and
provides on-demand technical support at federal, Tribal, or state-led cleanup sites and during
emergencies. The SHC program serves two primary customers: the EPA's federal and regional
decision makers, and community decision makers across the country.
The overall research effort is organized around six integrated and transdisciplinary national
research programs. Each program is guided by a Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP) that is
the result of a collaboration with, and supportive of, the EPA's program offices and regions.
Recent accomplishments include:
• Identifying Key Factors for Improved Water Quality in Lawrence, MA: SHC has worked
closely with Region 1, the City of Lawrence, Groundwork Lawrence23, and the Merrimack
Valley Watershed Council24 to map and analyze flood zones, precipitation data, combined
sewer overflows, E. coli concentration data, incidents of gastrointestinal illness, and exposure
locations to inform actions that reduce potential flooding and improve water quality.
• Facilitating Improvements in Great Lakes Areas of Concern: SHC works closely with
Region 5, the Great Lakes Program Office, and Great Lakes States to fully integrate
environmental protection with the communities' economic vitality. At the St. Louis River
Estuary in Duluth, MN, significant improvements already have been made. A 2016 SHC study
found that up to 85% of the estuary surface now falls below pollution limits.25
• Developing Guidelines for Evaluating the Post-Closure Care (PCC) Period for Hazardous
Waste Disposal Facilities: SHC is evaluating data to quantify the field performance of
23 http://www.groundworklawrence.org/
24 http://www.merrimack.org/web/
25 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/sijublic_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=311324
92
-------
engineered containment systems from eight landfills that are nearing the end of their 30-year
PCC period. Results from this evaluation will form the basis for technical guidance to evaluate
hazardous waste landfills nation-wide per Subtitle C of RCRA.
• Improving Children's Health Protection Through Lead Exposure Modeling: In response
to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC)26 recommendations for a
revised Lead and Copper Rule, SHC has produced age-specific estimates of lead exposure from
water, soil ingestion, food, and air to inform health-based values for lead in drinking water.
This effort supplies information to otherwise data-poor areas of exposure research in very
young children.
• Adding Six New Communities to EnviroAtlas27: EnviroAtlas is an interactive online
mapping system that displays layers of information on environmental quality, health statistics,
and socio-economic factors in specific communities. It provides local leaders with high
resolution data to inform decision-making. In 2016, SHC added Austin, TX, Cleveland, OH,
Des Moines, IA, Memphis, TN, Minneapolis, MN and New York, NY to the Atlas. The addition
of these cities brought the number of EnviroAtlas communities to 18, with another 6 planned
for inclusion in the coming fiscal year.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, resources will be used to support the research personnel who will analyze existing
research data and publish scientific journal articles to disseminate findings associated with the data.
Several research efforts will be retained, including: EnviroAtlas, a web-based atlas of ecosystem
services; conducting valuation of ecosystem services; studying how ecosystem services impact
human health; measuring impact on vulnerable populations (e.g. children); and the remediation of
contaminated sites.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under ORD's Board of Scientific Councilors
(BOSC) for the SHC program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In
addition, ORD will meet regularly with both the BOSC and the Science Advisory Board over the
next several years to seek their input on topics related to research program design, science quality,
innovation, relevance, and impact. This includes advising the EPA on its strategic research
direction with the review of ORD's recently released Strategic Research Action Plans (StRAPs)28
The EPA also collaborates with several science agencies and the research community to assess our
research performance. For example, the EPA is partnering with the National Institutes of Health,
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and Department of Agriculture. The EPA
also works with the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy and supports the
interagency Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment-Measuring the Effect of Research
on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) effort.29
26 https://www.epa.gov/ndwac
27 https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas
28 EPA Strategic Research Action Plans, http://www.epa.gov/research/strategic-research-action-plans-2016-2019.
29 STAR METRICS, https://www.starmetrics.nih.gov/.
93
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$36,524.0 / -86.7 FTE) This streamlines research support in FY 2018 related to the
following activities:
o The Ecotox database;
o The EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE); and
o The inclusion of a data layer in EnviroAtlas on ecosystem services and their
beneficiaries.
• (-$18,266.0 / -50.4 FTE) This streamlines research efforts across environmental media,
including:
o Research on the life cycle of materials in commerce; and
o The People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3) program for college-level competition.
• (-$17,121.0 / -40.3 FTE) This streamlines research on the following:
o The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach for assessing the impact of major
planned infrastructure development (e.g. highway construction) at a city scale of
governance;
o Research into the mechanisms of chemical exposures and effects on human health
outcomes and well-being, especially research into cumulative effects;
o Research into the uptake and distribution of contaminates (e.g., lead, arsenic) within
vulnerable populations;
o Research into the environmental component of children's asthma.
• (-$13,587.0) This eliminates funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program
for FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act (CWA); dinger Cohen Act; Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA); Environmental Research, Development & Demonstration Authorization Act
(ERDDAA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Food Quality and Protection Act (FQPA); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; National Environmental Education Act; National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Toxic Substances Control Act, §§ 10, 306; Water Resources
Research Act.
94
-------
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
95
-------
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science it- Technology
SV.1J2.U
ssvjts.n
v»/
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$93,323.4
$89,158.0
$61,673.0
($27,485.0;
Total Workyears
291.1
306.4
238.9
-67.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research program provides information, tools,
and methods to make better-informed, more-timely decisions about the thousands of chemicals
circulating in the United States. The CSS program provides products that strengthen the agency's
ability to evaluate and predict impacts from the use and disposal of manufactured chemicals. The
CSS program works with program offices to plan and develop innovative research that directly
addresses agency challenges and informs agency decisions. Products delivered by the CSS program
inform the implementation of multiple agency programs including mitigation activity at Superfund
sites (CERCLA), the assessment of chemical toxicity using alternative testing protocols, and
chemical prioritization (TSCA).
The CSS program is one of six integrated and transdisciplinary national research programs. Each
program is guided by a Strategic Research Action Plan (StRAP) that is the result of a collaboration
with, and supportive of, the EPA's program offices and regions.
Recent accomplishments include:
• Public release of the interactive Chemistry Dashboard:30 In a continued commitment to
improve the public's access to data, CSS scientists released a new interactive Chemistry
Dashboard with chemistry information for over 700,000 chemicals. While large amounts of
chemical data are available, it often appears in scattered locations. The Chemistry
Dashboard is a gateway to an array of related public domain databases and serves as a hub
that links together many EPA research databases, providing improved access to data and
models associated with chemicals of interest. The Chemistry Dashboard brings the EPA
one step closer to a one-stop-shop for data needs regarding environmental chemistry data
that inform future exposure and risk assessments by the agency and outside researchers.
• Advances in consensus modeling: powering prediction through collaboration31:
Predictive computational models can efficiently help prioritize thousands of chemicals for
additional testing and evaluation. In support of the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program (EDSP), CSS scientists led a large-scale modeling project called the Collaborative
Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project (CERAPP). CERAPP demonstrated the
30 Interactive Chemistry Dashboard accessible here: https://comptox.epa. gov/dashboard/
31 Link to article "CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project" http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10267/
96
-------
efficacy of using computational models with high-throughput screening data to predict
potential estrogen receptor activity of over 32,000 chemicals. This international effort (17
research groups from the United States and Europe) collaborated to develop 48 individual
models which were then evaluated and weighed for their predictive accuracy. This research
demonstrates the feasibility of computational modeling and data and literature mining
approaches for screening large numbers of chemicals, which aids the work of the EPA's
regulators and outside parties.
• Advances in exposure dose-response modeling for improved risk assessments32:
Understanding what happens to a chemical after it enters the body, and how the chemical is
adsorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted (ADME) is an important challenge for risk
assessors. Models to estimate ADME and relevant exposures and doses have been
extremely limited by available data. Even with the engagement of the broader scientific
community, 14 such models for unique chemicals are produced each year. In FY 2016, CSS
researchers and their collaborators produced a portfolio of modeling approaches and curated
databases that make it possible to accelerate the rate at which these models can be developed
for the chemicals and populations of interest. These models inform users inside and outside
the EPA.
• Public release of the Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility
(SeqAPASS) tool33: Researchers and regulators often have to make decisions based on
limited information. SeqAPASS helps fill their knowledge gaps faster and cheaper by
extrapolating toxicity information across species. It does this by using reported information
about the effect of one chemical on a specific species to apply it to information about other
species. This tool has proven to be extremely valuable in evaluating risks of exposures from
pesticides and pharmaceuticals in wildlife species.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The CSS program will continue to produce innovative tools that accelerate the pace of data-driven
chemical evaluations, enable the EPA and state decisions to be environmentally sound and public
health protective, and support sustainable innovation of chemicals.
Computational Toxicology (CompTox): The EPA has been a leader in developing innovative
computational and high-throughput methods for efficiently screening large numbers of chemicals in
a shorter amount of time and using fewer research dollars than conventional methods. In FY 2018,
CompTox research will provide essential support to agency activities across diverse regulatory
frameworks (e.g., TSCA, FIFRA). Novel applications can add significant efficiency and
effectiveness to agency operations and provide states with the information to support effective
decisions and actions. Opportunities in FY 2018 include:
32 Link to example article about evaluating risks to infants and children https://academic.oiip.com/toxsci/article-
abstract/152/1/230/2579248/Integration-of-Life-Stage-Physioloeically-Based
33 Additional information here: https://blog.epa.gov/blog/tag/seqapass/. Login here: https://seqapass.epa.gov/seqapass/
97
-------
• Using ToxCast/Tox21 data to develop high-throughput risk assessments, in particular for
chemicals for which adequate information has not been available historically to conduct
risk assessments.
• Developing and releasing on-line software tools to transparently provide information on
thousands of chemicals and integrate human health, environmental, and exposure data for a
range of decisions, including chemical prioritization decisions.
• Exploring how high-throughput exposure and hazard information can be combined to
predict potential for exposure and risk to susceptible subpopulations.
These applications perform research as directed by, and to support efforts of the agency's Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention Program to fulfill requirements for chemical evaluation under the
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: The agency is requesting funding to fulfill its core statutory
requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-170). The EPA will
significantly reduce its overall research efforts focused on endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Emerging Materials (including Nanotechnology): In FY 2018, the CSS program will continue
research on emerging materials, including the increased use of nanoparticles. Research activities on
nanoparticles maintain the agency's contribution to research carried out under the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Public Law 108-153), which includes specifically
mapping the environmental fate of nanomaterials across the lifecycle, evaluating impacts to
ecosystems and wildlife health, and providing research support that aids industry in developing safer
nanomaterials.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,270.0) This eliminates funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program for
FY 2018.
• (-$4,451.0 / -13.1 FTE) This change in funding reduces resources for the development of
high-throughput toxicity testing and the agency's development of improved methods for
chemical evaluations.
• (-$2,753.0 / -10.7 FTE) This change in funding reduces research efforts focused on
endocrine disrupting chemicals under this program.
• (-$14,011.0 / -43.7 FTE) This reduces funding for the development of virtual tissue models
and tools that potentially can be used to conduct chemical toxicity screening to understand
impacts on human development and health outcomes, while minimizing the use of animal
testing.
98
-------
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act §§ 103, 104, 154; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA); Children's Health Act; 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act; Clean Water Act, §§ 101-121; Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1976 (ERDDAA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), §
102; Pollution Prevention Act (PPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), §§ 10, 15.
99
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
S Mt.OtrM
S.i -,5MU)
S22.5I0M
(SI 5. HI 4.0)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$2,751.4
$2,838.0
$5,305.0
$2,467.0
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$38,758.4
$40,368.0
$27,821.0
($12,547.0)
Total Workyears
160.7
178.9
111.6
-67.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) research program is focused on the science
of assessments that inform decisions made by the EPA and its partners, including states and tribes.
These assessments provide the scientific basis for decisions under an array of environmental laws,
including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). The current portfolio of HHRA products include:
• Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): IRIS assessments are the top tier source of toxicity
information used by the EPA and other health agencies to inform national standards, clean-up
levels at local sites, and set advisory levels. IRIS assessments are not risk assessments. IRIS
assessments inform decisions under the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
CERCLA/Superfund, and TSCA.
• Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs): Provide a concise evaluation and synthesis of science
necessary to support decisions to retain or revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants (particulate matter, ozone, lead, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, and carbon monoxide) as required every five years by Sections 108(a)(2) and 109(d)(1)
of the Clean Air Act. ISAs also inform the cost-benefit analyses that support the regulations
designed to allow states and local areas to meet the NAAQS.
• Community and Site-specific Risk: Develops Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values
(PPRTVs) and exposure assessment tools to help inform the EPA's timely response to
contaminated Superfund and hazardous waste sites, as required by the CERCLA. PPRTVs are
typically developed for data poor chemicals for which no IRIS value exists.
• Research to Advance Analyses and Applications: Develops tools and methods that support the
scientific advances in assessments. This includes research to incorporate non-animal testing
data into assessments. It also includes research on cumulative risk assessment.
100
-------
Recent accomplishments include:
Final IRIS Assessments for Ammonia, Trimethylbenzenes, Ethylene Oxide, and
Benzo(a)pyrene: HHRA scientists recently finalized and posted IRIS reviews of these high priority
chemicals. The IRIS assessment for ammonia addresses the potential noncancer human health
effects from long-term inhalation exposure to ammonia, and it updates the toxicological
information on ammonia posted to the IRIS database in 1991. Trimethylbenzenes are important
constituents of gasoline and common waste site contaminants. Ethylene oxide is a major industrial
chemical and is used to sterilize hospital equipment. Benzo(a)pyrene is a component of smoke from
forest fires, industrial processes, vehicle exhaust, cigarettes, and is formed through the burning of
fuel (such as wood, coal, and petroleum products).
Final ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen - Primary NAAQS (Health Criteria): The ISA is a
comprehensive evaluation and synthesis of the policy-relevant science characterizing exposures to
ambient oxides of nitrogen and the health effects associated with the exposures. This ISA will
provide the scientific basis for decisions by the EPA Administrator to retain or revise the NAAQS
for nitrogen dioxide.
Exposure Resource for Scenarios Tool (ExpoFIRST) and EPA-Eco-Box: The ExpoFIRST tool
launched at the end of FY 2016 expanded the capabilities of regional, state, and local scientists in
conducting site-specific health assessments by allowing users to define and explore an unlimited
number of potential exposure scenarios related to a chemical of concern based on the Exposure
Factors Handbook and the Expo-Box toolbox. The EPA-Eco-Box provides a quick, easy, and
flexible way for users to access information and resources for conducting ecological risk
assessments.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The program will continue to provide support to EPA programs, Regional Offices, and states in
their chemical evaluation needs to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act. This includes scientific support for risk evaluations and high priority contaminants,
including perfluorinated compounds, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In order to
achieve its goals, HHRA will focus its resources on the following research projects:
IRIS:
The IRIS program will focus its efforts on accelerating the pace of and throughput for its chemical
reviews.
• Assessments that support policy and regulatory decisions for the EPA's programs and regions,
and state agencies, will be consolidated into a portfolio of Chemical Evaluation products that
optimize the application of best available science and technology. These products will be
shaped for use by a number of partners, including the EPA's program and Regional Offices,
states, and other federal agencies. This will allow HHRA to: a) navigate by anticipating the
EPA's strategic regulatory and policy directions, while scientifically remaining ahead of the
curve; b) manage tactically by ensuring that the order/timing/priorities of its assessment
101
-------
activities are consistent with both short-term and long-term goals; and c) work proactively to
translate and integrate the science and its tailored 'fit-for-purpose' products.
• Through a more proactive pipeline with the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), IRIS will continue to provide the support required for TSCA implementation. In
addition, IRIS will work with the Office of Air and Radiation to support response to court-
ordered requirements under the Residual Risk Assessment program.
• In terms of updated Health Assessments, IRIS will develop case studies of accelerated
systematic review methodologies/protocols and related automation tools. For this pilot, existing
assessments will be updated to meet focused high-priority needs for the EPA's program and
Regional Offices.
• HHRA also will collaborate with the Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research
program to link the architecture of assessment databases and literature management tools,
including Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) with the RapidTox Dashboard
being developed by the National Center for Computational Toxicology in CSS. This integration
can be used to inform assessment development and fill gaps in assessments, especially for data
poor chemicals. It also can incorporate diverse data streams, including data from non-animal
testing strategies, to develop assessment products for chemicals that are lacking assessments.
The National Academies Report, Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related
Evaluations34 provides additional guidance for implementing this approach through structured
case studies.
Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs):
ISAs will continue to be developed, including a draft ISA for particulate matter and a second draft
ISA for the ecological effects of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. The final
ISA for Oxides of Sulfur is anticipated to be completed on schedule: litigation is underway and a
court decree has been proposed that includes completion of this ISA in December 2017.
Community and Site-Specific Risk:
PPRTVs will be developed to support the EPA's clean-up decisions at contaminated Superfund and
hazardous waste sites, as required by CERCLA/Superfund. In FY 2018, 12 PPRTVs will be
completed and provided to the EPA's Land and Emergency Management Program and conveyed
to state and local agency partners to support decisions at waste sites.
Research to Advance Analyses and Applications:
Continued updating of the Exposures Factors Handbook and support for the Expo-Box and Eco-
Box toolsets will provide support and advance new methods (e.g. sensor technologies) to target
real-world scenarios. Research to develop and apply advances in molecular and systems biology to
inform IRIS, PPRTV, TSCA, and other assessment activities will be continued at a modified
schedule.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Councilors
(BOSC) for the Chemical Safety for Sustainability area that will be utilized to evaluate the research
34 dittp://dels. nas.edu/Repo rt/Using-21st-Centurv-Science-Improve/24635?bname=best')
102
-------
dimensions of the HHRA program as part of its performance and provide feedback to the agency.
The EPA will meet regularly with both the BOSC and Science Advisory Board (SAB) to seek their
input on topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and
impact. This includes advising the EPA on its strategic research direction as part of the review of
the agency's research and development program's recently released Strategic Research Action
Plans (StRAPs).35
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12,050.0 / -66.8 FTE) This refocuses research in the following areas:
o The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS);
o The development of cumulative risk methods and models to evaluate the complex
mixture and interplay of chemical and non-chemical stressors affecting ecological and
human health;
o The Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (STSC) and Ecological Risk
Assessment Support Center (ERASC);
o Systematic review and dose-response methods and tools used to inform ISAs, IRIS,
PPRTVs, and TSCA; and
o The development of advanced methods to support cost-benefit assessment.
• (-$2,964.0/ -15.2 FTE) Resources are being realigned to the Superfund appropriation within
this program/project for IRIS.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7403 et seq. - Sections 103, 108, 109, and 112; CERCLA
(Superfund, 1980) Section 209(a) of Public Law 99-499; CWA Title I, Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C.
1254 - Sec 104 (a) and (c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 - Section 2(a); FIFRA (7 U.S.C.
s/s 136 et seq. (1996), as amended), Sec. 3(c)(2)(A); FQPAPL 104-170; SDWA (1996) 42 U.S.C.
Section 300j-18; TSCA (Public Law 94-469): 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976), Sec. 4(b)(1)(B),
Sec. 4(b)(2)(B).
35 EPA Strategic Research Action Plans, http://www.epa.gov/research/strategic-research-action-plans-2016-2019.
103
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
104
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$96,372.2
$96,341.0
$80,044.0
($16,297.0)
Science i<- li'cluioloxy
SJ.5l2.lf
S.W.0
SNxO
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$100,348.0
$99,853.0
$83,701.0
($16,152.0)
Total Workyears
511.4
522.7
443.3
-79.4
Program Project Description:
Through the Drinking Water Technical Support Center, this program provides critical tools to
provide accurate and reliable monitoring for contaminants and effective operation of treatment
systems to remove the contaminants that present public health risk in drinking water.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA's Drinking Water Technical Support Center will carry out the following
activities:
• Lead the development, revision, evaluation, and approval of chemical and microbiological
analytical methods for compliance monitoring and for occurrence data gathering to ensure
protection of public health from contaminants in drinking water (e.g., toxins resulting from
harmful algal blooms).
• Implement the EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program, which sets
direction for oversight of municipal and commercial laboratories that analyze drinking
water samples. Conduct three regional program reviews during FY 2018 and deliver three
certification officer training courses [(1) chemistry, (2) microbiology, and (3)
Cryptosporidium)] for state and regional representatives to ensure the quality of the
analytical results.
• Partner with states and water systems to optimize their treatment technology under the
drinking water Area Wide Optimization Program (AWOP). The AWOP is a highly
successful technical/compliance assistance and training program that enhances the ability
of small systems to meet existing microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection byproduct
standards and also addresses distribution system integrity issues. During FY 2018, the EPA
expects to continue to work with 21 states and tribes to facilitate the transfer of specific
skills and build upon other drinking water implementation program efforts to reduce health
based compliance challenges.
• Initiate monitoring under the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4).
The UCMR 4 was published in December 2016, and addresses collection of data on
occurrence of 30 contaminants (e.g., cyanotoxins) to assess the frequency and levels at
which these contaminants are found in public water systems. The UCMR 4 is a federal
105
-------
direct implementation program coordinated by the EPA, as directed by the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The data collected are used by the EPA as part of the agency's determination of
whether to establish a health-based standard to protect public health. Monitoring activities
for UCMR 4 will occur from 2018-2020. Key activities for the EPA include assuring
laboratories are available that can perform the required analyses, managing all aspects of
small system monitoring, and managing data reported by large systems. The EPA is
required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, to
annually set aside $2.0 million of Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to pay the costs
of small system monitoring and sample analysis for contaminants for each cycle of the
UCMR.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$145.0 / -2.1 FTE) Resource and FTE changes represent the net of all other changes in
the program/project.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
106
-------
Program Area: Congressional Priorities
107
-------
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
Program Area: Congressional Priorities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science A- li'cluioloxy
SWJS.i
s/-ur.i.n
so.o
(SN.ir3.lt)
I'.nvironmental Program &. Management
SI 2,678.0
SI 2,676.0
so.o
(SI 2,676.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$23,056.5
$26,749.0
$0.0
($26,749.0)
Total Workyears
4.1
4.0
0.0
-4.0
Program Project Description:
In FY 2016, Congress appropriated $14.1 million in the Science and Technology appropriation.
$4.1 million was to fund high priority water quality and water availability research. The EPA was
instructed to award grants on a competitive basis, independent of the STAR program, and give
priority to not-for-profit organizations that: conduct activities that are national in scope; can provide
a twenty-five percent match, including in-kind contributions; and often partner with the agency.
$3.0 million was to further research on oil and gas development in the Appalachian Basin. $7.0
million was to fund certification and compliance activities related to vehicle and engine emissions.
This funding was provided by Congress to help the agency address certification and compliance
program needs in light of motor vehicle emissions noncompliance.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,073.0 / -4.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates this program.
Statutory Authority:
CAA 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Title 1, Part A - Sec. 103 (a) and (d) and Sec. 104 (c); CAA 42 U.S.C.
7402(b) Section 102; CAA 42 U.S.C. 7403(b)(2) Section 103(b)(2); dinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C.
11318; CERCLA (Superfund, 1980) Section 209(a) of Public Law 99-499; Children's Health Act;
CWA, Sec. 101 - 121; CWPPRA; CZARA; CZMA 16 U.S.C. 1451 - Section 302; Economy Act,
31 U.S.C. 1535; EISA, TitleII SubtitleB; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 - Section2(a); ESA, 16U.S.C.
1531 - Section 2; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 346; FIFRA (7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et seq. (1996), as amended),
Sec. 3(c)(2)(A); FQPAPL 104-170; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; MPRSA
Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C. 1443; NAWCA; NCPA; National Environmental Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
5503(b)(3) and (b)(ll);NEPA of 1969, Section 102;NISA; ODBA Title II; PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13103;
RCRA; SDWA(1996)42U.S.C. Section300j-18; SDWAPartE, Sec. 1442(a)(1); TSCA, Sections
10, 15, 26, U.S.C. 2609; USGCRA 15 U.S.C. 2921; WRDA; WRRA; and WWWQA.
108
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Environmental Programs and Management
Resource Summary Table 113
Program Area: Clean Air 118
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 119
GHG Reporting Program 123
Federal Stationary Source Regulations 126
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 129
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs 133
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund 137
Program Area: Brownfields 138
Brownfields 139
Program Area: Compliance 142
Compliance Monitoring 143
Program Area: Enforcement 146
Civil Enforcement 147
Criminal Enforcement 149
Environmental Justice 151
NEPA Implementation 152
Program Area: Geographic Programs 154
Great Lakes Restoration 155
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay 156
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay 157
Geographic Program: Puget Sound 158
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound 159
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico 160
Geographic Program: South Florida 161
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain 162
Geographic Program: Other 163
Program Area: Homeland Security 165
Homeland Security: Communication and Information 166
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 169
109
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 170
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 172
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination 173
Environmental Education 175
Executive Management and Operations 176
Exchange Network 179
Small Business Ombudsman 183
Small Minority Business Assistance 186
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness 187
TRI / Right to Know 189
Tribal - Capacity Building 191
Program Area: International Programs 194
US Mexico Border 195
International Sources of Pollution 197
Trade and Governance 199
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 200
Information Security 201
IT / Data Management 204
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 208
Administrative Law 209
Alternative Dispute Resolution 211
Civil Rights Program 212
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 216
Legal Advice: Support Program 218
Regional Science and Technology 220
Integrated Environmental Strategies 221
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis 224
Science Advisory Board 227
Program Area: Operations and Administration 229
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 230
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 232
Acquisition Management 234
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 236
Human Resources Management 238
110
-------
Workforce Reshaping 240
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 242
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 243
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 249
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 257
Science Policy and Biotechnology 262
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 263
RCRA: Waste Management 264
RCRA: Corrective Action 267
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling 270
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention 271
Endocrine Disruptors 272
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction 273
Pollution Prevention Program 281
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program 282
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 283
LUST / UST 284
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems 286
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways 287
Wetlands 288
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 290
Beach / Fish Programs 291
Drinking Water Programs 292
Program Area: Water Quality Protection 299
Marine Pollution 300
Surface Water Protection 301
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation 304
Indoor Air: Radon Program 305
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 306
Radiation: Protection 307
Radiation: Response Preparedness 309
Program Area: Congressional Priorities 311
Water Quality Research and Support Grants 312
111
-------
112
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority
$2,650,794.7
$2,630,269.0
$1,717,484.0
($912,785.0)
Total Workyears
9,306.6
9,767.2
7,320.8
-2,446.4
Bill Language: Environment Programs and Management
For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses, not otherwise
provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library memberships
in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members
lower than to subscribers who are not members; administrative costs of the brownfields program
under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of2002; and not to
exceed $19,000 for official reception and representation expenses, $1,717,484,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2019.
Program Projects in EPM
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Clean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
$17,343.4
$16,112.0
$12,791.0
($3,321.0)
GHG Reporting Program
$106,864.3
$95,255.0
$13,580.0
($81,675.0)
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
$21,958.0
$22,899.0
$16,653.0
($6,246.0)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$138,050.2
$124,506.0
$96,456.0
($28,050.0)
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
$5,195.6
$4,906.0
$3,687.0
($1,219.0)
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
$8,907.0
$8,911.0
$0.0
($8,911.0)
Subtotal, Clean Air
$298,318.5
$272,589.0
$143,167.0
($129,422.0)
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
$2,759.3
$2,904.0
$0.0
($2,904.0)
Radiation: Protection
$8,371.0
$8,427.0
$0.0
($8,427.0)
113
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Radiation: Response Preparedness
$2,047.1
$2,545.0
$2,257.0
($288.0)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
$12,972.9
$13,707.0
$0.0
($13,707.0)
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
$26,150.3
$27,583.0
$2,257.0
($25,326.0)
Brownfields
Brownfields
$24,718.6
$25,544.0
$16,082.0
($9,462.0)
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$103,713.4
$101,472.0
$86,431.0
($15,041.0)
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$174,120.9
$171,051.0
$140,470.0
($30,581.0)
Criminal Enforcement
$47,844.7
$46,225.0
$40,341.0
($5,884.0)
Environmental Justice
$7,347.6
$6,724.0
$0.0
($6,724.0)
NEPA Implementation
$15,761.3
$16,179.0
$13,496.0
($2,683.0)
Subtotal, Enforcement
$245,074.5
$240,179.0
$194,307.0
($45,872.0)
Geographic Programs
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
$77,543.8
$72,861.0
$0.0
($72,861.0)
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
$5,392.3
$4,473.0
$0.0
($4,473.0)
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
$4,395.0
$4,391.0
$0.0
($4,391.0)
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
$3,935.6
$3,932.0
$0.0
($3,932.0)
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
$947.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
S.New England Estuary (SNEE)
$4,975.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Geographic Program: Other (other
activities)
$1,460.0
$7,379.0
$0.0
($7,379.0)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
$7,382.0
$7,379.0
$0.0
($7,379.0)
Great Lakes Restoration
$288,091.8
$299,430.0
$0.0
($299,430.0)
Geographic Program: South Florida
$1,733.0
$1,701.0
$0.0
($1,701.0)
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
$4,600.7
$4,810.0
$0.0
($4,810.0)
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
$28,046.3
$27,947.0
$0.0
($27,947.0)
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
$421,120.5
$426,924.0
$0.0
($426,924.0)
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
$4,025.3
$3,870.0
$3,512.0
($358.0)
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
$627.1
$970.0
$0.0
($970.0)
114
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
$4,987.0
$5,336.0
$4,986.0
($350.0)
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$9,639.4
$10,176.0
$8,498.0
($1,678.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
$15,044.1
$15,289.0
$10,011.0
($5,278.0)
TRI / Right to Know
$13,292.4
$13,856.0
$8,680.0
($5,176.0)
Tribal - Capacity Building
$14,056.3
$14,358.0
$11,731.0
($2,627.0)
Executive Management and Operations
$47,798.4
$46,930.0
$37,106.0
($9,824.0)
Environmental Education
$10,138.8
$8,685.0
$0.0
($8,685.0)
Exchange Network
$17,066.5
$16,984.0
$11,784.0
($5,200.0)
Small Minority Business Assistance
$1,464.0
$1,667.0
$0.0
($1,667.0)
Small Business Ombudsman
$2,378.0
$1,995.0
$1,965.0
($30.0)
Children and Other Sensitive Populations:
Agency Coordination
$6,252.7
$6,535.0
$2,018.0
($4,517.0)
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
$127,491.2
$126,299.0
$83,295.0
($43,004.0)
International Programs
US Mexico Border
$2,913.7
$3,057.0
$0.0
($3,057.0)
International Sources of Pollution
$6,345.0
$6,418.0
$4,051.0
($2,367.0)
Trade and Governance
$6,231.3
$5,896.0
$0.0
($5,896.0)
Subtotal, International Programs
$15,490.0
$15,371.0
$4,051.0
($11,320.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
$27,152.6
$28,132.0
$11,997.0
($16,135.0)
IT / Data Management
$83,883.2
$83,790.0
$70,069.0
($13,721.0)
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
$111,035.8
$111,922.0
$82,066.0
($29,856.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Integrated Environmental Strategies
$13,429.0
$11,469.0
$9,151.0
($2,318.0)
Administrative Law
$4,984.0
$4,765.0
$4,141.0
($624.0)
Alternative Dispute Resolution
$1,442.1
$1,043.0
$0.0
($1,043.0)
Civil Rights Program
$11,216.7
$10,052.0
$8,266.0
($1,786.0)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$49,227.0
$48,473.0
$42,565.0
($5,908.0)
Legal Advice: Support Program
$14,692.6
$15,450.0
$15,548.0
$98.0
Regional Science and Technology
$1,602.1
$1,529.0
$0.0
($1,529.0)
Science Advisory Board
$4,203.8
$3,875.0
$3,567.0
($308.0)
115
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
$15,218.6
$14,546.0
$15,208.0
$662.0
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
$116,015.9
$111,202.0
$98,446.0
($12,756.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$70,707.8
$72,047.0
$64,709.0
($7,338.0)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Acquisition Management
$30,174.3
$30,406.0
$24,978.0
($5,428.0)
Fluman Resources Management
$40,756.0
$43,185.0
$40,512.0
($2,673.0)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
$27,202.6
$25,248.0
$18,564.0
($6,684.0)
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$46,719.0
$46,719.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$473,297.6
$481,834.0
$496,483.0
$14,649.0
Pesticides Licensing
Science Policy and Biotechnology
$1,362.5
$1,172.0
$0.0
($1,172.0)
Pesticides: Protect Fluman Flealth from
Pesticide Risk
$57,708.1
$57,699.0
$48,568.0
($9,131.0)
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
$39,651.4
$37,222.0
$31,930.0
($5,292.0)
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
$7,727.5
$6,074.0
$5,028.0
($1,046.0)
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
$106,449.5
$102,167.0
$85,526.0
($16,641.0)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Corrective Action
$37,967.0
$36,860.0
$31,947.0
($4,913.0)
RCRA: Waste Management
$57,022.8
$58,986.0
$41,146.0
($17,840.0)
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
$8,510.8
$8,832.0
$0.0
($8,832.0)
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
$103,500.6
$104,678.0
$73,093.0
($31,585.0)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disruptors
$6,035.4
$7,539.0
$0.0
($7,539.0)
Pollution Prevention Program
$11,982.4
$13,115.0
$0.0
($13,115.0)
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
$56,030.4
$58,443.0
$65,036.0
$6,593.0
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
$13,051.2
$13,250.0
$0.0
($13,250.0)
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
$87,099.4
$92,347.0
$65,036.0
($27,311.0)
116
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
$11,083.4
$11,273.0
$5,612.0
($5,661.0)
Water: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
$25,862.3
$26,672.0
$0.0
($26,672.0)
Wetlands
$21,065.5
$21,025.0
$18,115.0
($2,910.0)
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
$46,927.8
$47,697.0
$18,115.0
($29,582.0)
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
$1,779.8
$1,978.0
$0.0
($1,978.0)
Drinking Water Programs
$96,372.2
$96,341.0
$80,044.0
($16,297.0)
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
$98,152.0
$98,319.0
$80,044.0
($18,275.0)
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
$10,757.8
$10,142.0
$0.0
($10,142.0)
Surface Water Protection
$202,080.5
$199,875.0
$174,975.0
($24,900.0)
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
$212,838.3
$210,017.0
$174,975.0
($35,042.0)
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
$12,678.0
$12,676.0
$0.0
($12,676.0)
Subtotal, Water Quality Research and
Support Grants
$12,678.0
$12,676.0
$0.0
($12,676.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$2,650,794.7
$2,630,269.0
$1,717,484.0
($912,785.0)
117
-------
Program Area: Clean Air
118
-------
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SI -J-f.U
SI (>.112.0
SI2.'')!.()
(SJJ2I.0)
Science & Technology
SX, 149.6
S7.793.0
S5.739.0
(S2,054.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$25,493.0
$23,905.0
$18,530.0
($5,375.0)
Total Workyears
71.7
71.4
63.7
-7.7
Program Project Description:
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are precursors for fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
while NOx also is a precursor for ground-level ozone (O3). Researchers have associated PM2.5 and
O3 exposure with adverse health effects in toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological studies.
Lowering exposure to PM2.5 and O3 contributes to significant human health benefits.
The Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs are nationwide and multi-state programs that address
major global, national, and regional air pollutants from large stationary sources. In FY 2018, the
EPA will operate seven Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs. Under Title I of the Clean Air
Act, the EPA operates five Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs - two annual SO2 trading
programs, an annual NOx trading program, and two ozone season NOx trading programs on behalf
of 27 states in the eastern U.S.1 In addition, under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, the Acid Rain
Program (ARP), the EPA operates a national annual SO2 trading program and a NOx emissions
reduction program for the power sector.2
The Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs establish a total emission limit that is allocated to
affected emission sources in the form of allowances; authorizations to emit one ton of a pollutant.
The owners and operators of affected emission sources may select among different methods of
compliance - install pollution control equipment, purchase allowances, or switch fuel types. These
programs are managed through a centralized database system operated by the EPA.3 Select data,
collected under these programs, is made available to the public through the EPA's Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD) website. AMPD provides access to both current and historical data
collected as part of the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs through interactive maps, charts,
reports, and pre-packaged datasets.
To implement the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, the EPA operates the Part 75 emission
measurement program that requires approximately 4,500 affected units to monitor and report hourly
emission data and operation data.4 The emission measurement program requires high degrees of
1 Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D)
2 Clean Air Act § 401
3 Clean Air Act § 403(d)
4 Clean Air Act § 412; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. P.L. 101-549. §821
119
-------
accuracy and reliability from continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) or approved
alternative methods at the affected sources. The EPA provides the affected emission sources with
a software tool, the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS), to process and
quality assure the data and facilitate reporting to the EPA. The agency conducts electronic audits,
desk reviews, and field audits of the emission data and monitoring systems. The emission
measurement program supports a number of other state and federal emission control and reporting
programs.
The EPA's centralized database system, the allowance tracking system, records allowance
allocations and transfers.5 At the end of each compliance period, allowances are reconciled against
reported emissions to determine compliance for every facility with affected emission sources. For
over 20 years, the affected facilities have maintained near-perfect compliance under the trading
programs. In 2016, total SO2 emissions from emission sources subject to the Acid Rain Program
were 1.5 million tons, or approximately one-sixth of the statutory nationwide emissions cap. Total
NOx emissions were 1.2 million tons in 2016, reflecting a reduction of over 6 million tons from
projected 2000 NOx levels absent the Acid Rain Program, exceeding the program's total targeted
reduction of 2 million tons.
The Clean Air Act's Good Neighbor provision6 requires states or, in some circumstances, the
agency to reduce interstate pollution that interferes with the attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under this authority, the EPA issued the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which took effect on January 1,2015. CSAPRrequires 27 states
in the eastern U.S. to limit their state-wide emissions of SO2 and/or NOx in order to reduce or
eliminate the states' contributions to PM2.5 and/or ground-level O3 pollution in other downwind
states. The emission limitations are defined in terms of maximum state-wide "budgets" for
emissions of annual SO2, annual NOx, and/or ozone-season NOx from certain large stationary
sources in each state.
The EPA relies on the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) for monitoring
deposition, ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations, and other air quality indicators. The EPA
uses the Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program for assessing how water bodies and aquatic
ecosystems are responding to reductions in sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Data from these air
quality and environmental monitoring programs, in conjunction with SO2 and NOx emissions data
from the Part 75 monitoring program, have allowed the EPA to develop a comprehensive
accountability framework to track the results of its air quality programs. The EPA applies this
framework to the programs it implements and issues annual progress reports on compliance and
environmental results achieved by the Acid Rain Program and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
Previous reports have covered progress under the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the NOx Budget
Trading Program. These annual progress reports not only track reductions in SO2 and NOx
emissions from affected sources, but also assess the impacts of these reductions on air quality (e.g.,
ozone and PM2.5 levels), acid deposition, surface water acidity, forest health, and other
environmental indicators.
5 Clean Air Act § 403(d)
6 Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D); see also Clean Air Act § 110(c)
120
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will continue to operate the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs and the systems to
assess the programs' progress toward the environmental goals required by the Clean Air Act. The
EPA will work to meet requirements and requests for modeling in support of the power sector and
for legal defense of regulatory actions. The program will support emission reporting for the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Rule,7 aligned with capacity.
Allowance tracking and compliance assessment
The EPA will allocate SO2 and NOx allowances to affected emission sources and other account
holders as established in the Clean Air Act8 and state and federal CSAPR implementation plans.
These allowance holdings will be maintained in an updated allowance tracking system (i.e., central
database) that will record allowance transfers.9 At the end of each compliance period, the EPA will
reconcile each facility's allowance holdings against its emissions to ensure compliance for all
affected sources.10
Emission measurement and data collection and review
The EPA will operate the Part 75 emission measurement program to collect, quality assure, and
track emissions of air pollutants and air toxics, from approximately 4,500 fossil-fuel-fired electric
generating units.
Program assessment
The EPA will develop progress reports and other information to communicate the extent of the
progress made by the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs.11
Assistance to states
The EPA will work with states to develop emission reduction programs to comply with Clean Air
Act Good Neighbor Provision requirements.12 This includes implementation of the CSAPR Update
regulation finalized on September 7, 2016.
The FY 2018 performance target maintains SO2 emissions below three million tons, reflecting the
implementation of the CSAPR programs in the eastern states in combination with the Acid Rain
Program.
Progress was stronger than anticipated in FY 2016, with actual emissions of SO2 from electric
power generation sources of 1,487,542 tons, compared with a target of 4 million tons. Actual
7 40 C.F.R. pt. 63, subpt. UUUUU (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal and Oil Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units).
8 Clean Air Act § § 110 and 403
9 Clean Air Act § § 110 and 403
10 Clean Air Act §§110 and 404-405 and state CSAPR implementation plans
11 Government Performance and Results Act § 1115
12 Clean Air Act § 110(a)(2)(D)
121
-------
emissions have consistently been lower than the targets due to a number of factors including: use
of the large and growing bank of ARP allowances; and uncertainty regarding market dynamics
related to the mix of fuels and power generation sources in the future. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarket/progress/progress-reports.html
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,321.0 / -7.7 FTE) This streamlines support for the program, focusing on the operation
of existing systems to meet core requirements.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act.
122
-------
GHG Reporting Program
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S IM.Xh-l..*
N I.ijMUt
(S
Science & Technology
S8,824.2
S8,003.0
so.o
(S8,003.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$115,688.5
$103,258.0
$13,580.0
($89,678.0)
Total Workyears
204.5
224.1
50.0
-174.1
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program develops and delivers data, analysis, and
technical information and assistance to identify technologies and strategies for industries, states,
communities, and tribes to meet Clean Air Act obligations and other statutory requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: The EPA implements the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program, which directs the EPA to "require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above
appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the U.S." The EPA annually collects data
from over 8,000 facilities from 41 large industrial source categories in the U.S. and uses this data to
improve estimates included in the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, to support
federal and state-level policy development and to share with industry stakeholders, state and local
governments, the research community, and the public.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: In order to fulfill U.S. Treaty obligations,
under Article 4 of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the
Senate, the EPA prepares the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, to
provide information on total annual U.S. emissions and removals by source, economic sector, and
greenhouse gas. EPA leads the interagency process of preparing the Inventory, working with
technical experts from numerous federal agencies including the Department of Energy's Energy
Information Agency; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; U.S. Geological
Survey, and academic and research institutions.
Partnership Programs: The EPA participates in a number of partnership programs, including the
following:
• ENERGY STAR
• AgSTAR
• Coalbed Methane Outreach Program
• The Landfill Methane Outreach Program
• The Natural Gas STAR Program
• The Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge program
• The Global Methane Initiative
123
-------
• The SmartWay Transport program
• The EPA's Green Power Partnership
• The Combined Heat and Power Partnership
• The Center for Corporate Climate Leadership
• The State and Local Climate and Energy Program
HFC Programs: The EPA supports reducing the use and emissions of HFCs through the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, mandated under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments. This program has finalized actions to restrict the use of HFCs in applications where
alternatives now exist, and to develop options for key industrial sectors including refrigeration and
air-conditioning, foams, and fire suppression.
Science. Economic, and Technical Analyses: The EPA conducts a range of economic, scientific and
technical analyses for CAA regulatory actions and technical input.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide technical, analytical, and scientific support for the regulatory
action consistent with Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth dated March 28, 2017. The budget includes resources to support the review of
the Clean Power Plan.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program covering
a total of 41 sectors, with approximately 8,000 reporters. Focus areas for the program will include:
• Implement regulatory revisions across multiple sectors to address stakeholder concerns
associated with collection and potential release of data elements considered to be
sensitive business information;
• Align the database management systems with those regulatory amendments; and
• Conduct a QA/QC and verification process through a combination of electronic checks,
staff reviews, and follow-up with facilities, when necessary.
The EPA will work to complete the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks.
In FY 2018, funding for ENERGY STAR and other partnership programs is eliminated. The EPA
will explore options for the potential transfer of the ENERGY STAR and other climate protection
partnership programs to non-governmental entities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$81,675.0 / -140.3 FTE) This streamlines funding for the GHG Reporting Program in
the following areas:
124
-------
o Partnership programs with industry, businesses, states, tribes, and localities;
o Use and emissions of HFCs under the SNAP program; and
o Technical support to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act; FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act; Global Change Research Act of 1990;
Global Climate Protections Act; Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 756; Pollution Prevention Act, §§
6602-6605; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), § 102; Clean Water Act, § 104; Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), § 8001.
125
-------
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S2l.V5tUI
N 22.SVV.O
N K,.(,5XD
(Sf).2-10.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S21,958.0
S22.899.0
SI 6.653.0
(S6.246.0)
Total Workyears
107.1
122.5
79.1
-43.4
Program Project Description:
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ambient pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The six
"criteria" pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQS are: particulate matter (PM),
ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead. The CAA
requires the EPA to periodically review the science upon which the NAAQS are based and the
standards themselves. These national standards form the foundation for air quality management
and establish goals that protect public health and the environment.
Section 109 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 established two types of NAAQS. Primary standards
are set at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary
standards are set at a level requisite to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects.
This program includes activities, mandated by the CAA, directed toward reducing air emissions of
toxic, criteria, and other pollutants from stationary sources. Specifically, to address air toxics, this
program provides for the development of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for major sources (i.e., Maximum Achievable Control Technology - MACT
standards) and area sources, the development of standards of performance and emissions guidelines
for waste combustion sources, the assessment and, as necessary, regulation of residual risk
remaining after implementation of the NESHAP, the periodic review and revision of the NESHAP,
and associated national guidance and outreach. In addition to existing CAA and court-ordered
mandates, the EPA is required to periodically review, and, where appropriate, revise both the list
of air toxics subject to regulation and the list of source categories for which standards must be
developed. The program also includes issuing, reviewing, and periodically revising, as necessary,
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for criteria and certain listed pollutants, and providing
guidance on Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) through issuance and periodic
review and revision of control technique guidelines (CTG).
The CAA also requires protection of air quality related values (AQRV) for 156 congressionally
mandated national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas. Visibility is one such
AQRV, and Congress established a national goal of returning visibility in the Class I areas to
natural conditions, i.e., the visibility conditions which existed without manmade air pollution. The
126
-------
Regional Haze Rule sets forth the requirements that state plans must satisfy to make reasonable
progress towards meeting this national goal. The year 2064 is used as a reference date in the
regional haze planning process, but is not a firm statutory deadline to achieve natural conditions
of visibility.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to perform regulatory reviews mandated by the CAA, including
any associated actions.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue its reviews of the NAAQS and make revisions, as appropriate.
Each review involves a comprehensive reexamination, synthesis, and evaluation of the scientific
information, the design and conduct of complex air quality and risk and exposure analyses, the
development of a comprehensive policy assessment providing analysis of the scientific basis
for alternative policy options. The agency will adjust schedules for the development of proposed
and final rules to align with the capacity and agency considerations to revise regulatory
assessments.
Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA to set NSPS for industrial categories that cause, or
significantly contribute to, air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. In FY 2018,
the EPA will continue work to address NSPS for sources of air pollutants, consistent with the
requirements of the CAA. Section 111 of the CAA also requires the EPA, at least every eight years,
to review and, if appropriate, revise NSPS for each source category for which such standards have
been established.
Work is currently underway to achieve and maintain compliance with existing standards. These
include the ozone standards established in 2015, 2008, 1997, and 1979; the 1997 PMi0 standards;
the 2012, 2006 and 1997 PM2.5 standards; the 2008 lead standard;13 the 2010 N02 standard; the
1971 CO standard; and the 2010 S02 standard.
The agency will adjust the schedule of updating the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). Air
toxics are pollutants known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, reproductive
effects, or other serious health problems.
To reduce or eliminate the health risks and exposures to air toxics in affected communities and
to fulfill its statutory and court-ordered obligations more efficiently, the EPA will need to
pursue opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for stationary sources in more
integrated ways in FY 2018. In aligning this effort with Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda and Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, the EPA will look for ways to repeal, replace, or modify existing regulations to
make them less burdensome and to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of
public and private funds.
13 In September 2016, EPA completed the review of the 2008 Lead NAAQS and retained the standards without revision.
127
-------
In addition, ongoing regulatory reviews statutorily mandated by the CAA will be prioritized to
maximize public health protection and to meet court-ordered deadlines. For example, Section
112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review and revise, as necessary, within eight years, all
of the MACT standards for air toxics that have been promulgated under CAA Section 112 since
1990. These reviews include collection of new information and emissions data from industry;
review of emission control technologies; and associated economic analyses for the affected
industries. Similarly, Section 112(f) of the CAA requires the EPA to conduct reviews of the risk
that remains after the implementation of MACT standards within eight years of promulgation. In
FY 2018, the EPA will engage in rulemaking efforts to review and revise, as necessary and
appropriate, emissions standards for five source categories pursuant to a court order or consent
decree (Portland cement, nutritional yeast, pulp and paper, publically owned treatment works, and
wool fiberglass). There is a pending consent decree for a sixth source category (off-site waste
recovery operations). The EPA also is under recent court orders to complete CAA Section 112 risk
and technology review rulemakings by 2020 for 33 source categories and subject to litigation for
completion of similar rulemakings for nine other source categories. A substantial portion of the
work for these Section 112 rulemakings will need to commence in FY 2018. On a limited basis,
compliance testing and monitoring methodologies will continue to be developed and improved in
support of these risk determination and rulemaking efforts. In addition, under Section 129 of the
CAA, the EPA plans to continue efforts to address the risk and technology review for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to address program-wide issues, including court-vacated rules
that apply across many industrial sources.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,246.0 / -43.4 FTE) As a result of this change, the agency will work to develop a more
efficient approach to meeting its statutorily-required NAAQS reviews. In addition, the EPA
will rely on states and other stakeholders to pinpoint burden and cost-reduction actions
needed to improve the federal-state partnership and the stationary source regulatory process
as a whole.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act.
128
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S I3N.050.2
S12-/.506.0
N V6.456.0
(S2X.050.0)
Science & Technology
S6,234.3
S7.45.V0
S3.959.0
(S3,494.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$144,284.5
$131,959.0
$100,415.0
($31,544.0)
Total Workyears
804.1
842.0
601.8
-240.2
Program Project Description:
The Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program assists states, tribes, and local air
pollution control agencies in the development, implementation, and evaluation of programs for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), establishes standards for reducing air toxics,
and sustains visibility protection. The EPA develops federal measures and regional strategies that
help to reduce emissions from stationary and mobile sources; whereas states have the primary
responsibility (and tribes may choose to take responsibility) for developing clean air measures
necessary to meet the NAAQS and protect visibility. At the core of this air quality management
program are sound scientific and technical data of air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The
EPA, working with states, tribes, and local air agencies, collects these data and maintains databases
(e.g., Emissions Inventory System, Air Quality System, etc.). The EPA also supports training for
state, Tribal, and local air pollution professionals.
Under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is required to set National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ambient pollutants considered harmful to public health and the
environment. The six "criteria" pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQS are:
particulate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), and lead (Pb). The CAA requires the EPA to periodically review the science upon which the
NAAQS are based and the standards themselves. These national standards form the foundation for
air quality management and establish goals that protect public health and the environment.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 established two types of NAAQS. Primary standards are set at a
level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, including the health of at-
risk populations.
For each of the six criteria pollutants, under Section 110 of the CAA, the EPA tracks two kinds of
air pollution information: air pollutant concentrations based on actual measurements in the ambient
(outside) air at monitoring sites throughout the country; and pollutant emissions based on
engineering estimates or measurements of the total tons of pollutants released into the air each year.
The EPA works with state and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of emission
source controls in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and with tribes on Tribal Implementation Plans
(TIPs).
129
-------
Section 169A of the CAA also requires protection of air quality related values (AQRV) for 156
congressionally mandated national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas. Visibility
is one such AQRV and Congress established a national goal of returning visibility in the Class I
areas to natural conditions (i.e., the visibility conditions which existed without manmade air
pollution). The EPA developed the Regional Haze Rule, which sets forth the requirements that
state plans must satisfy to make reasonable progress towards meeting this national goal.
The provisions in the Clean Air Act that address the control of air toxics are found in Section 112
of the CAA which requires that the emissions control bases for all Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards be reviewed and updated, as necessary, every eight years.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Air quality has improved significantly for communities across the country since passage of the
CAA in 1970 (with amendments in 1977 and 1990). Since 1990, for example, national average
levels have decreased by 22 percent for ozone, 37 percent for particulate matter, 81 percent for
sulfur dioxide, and 99 percent for lead. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to perform key activities
in support of the NAAQS and implementation of stationary source regulations support; by state,
Tribal, and local air quality programs.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue its CAA mandated responsibilities to administer the NAAQS by
reviewing state plans and decisions consistent with statutory obligations, taking federal oversight
actions such as approving or disapproving SIP/TIP submittals, and by developing regulations and
policies to ensure continued health and welfare protection during the transition between existing
and new standards. The EPA will work with states to adjust the schedules to additional state-
requested rulemakings and guidance documents to support state and Tribal efforts to implement
CAA SIP requirements to align with capacity and priorities. This includes additional guidance
requested by states on developing exceptional events demonstrations. The EPA will provide
prioritized technical and policy assistance to states and tribes developing or revising SIPs/TIPs.
The EPA will continue to look for ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the SIP
process, including its own review process, with a goal of maximizing timely processing of state-
requested SIP actions, which on average number about 300 per year across the regions. The agency
will take action on designation or re-designation of nonattainment areas to attainment, as
appropriate, pursuant to Sections 107 and 110 of the Clean Air Act respectively. Nonattainment
designations can negatively impact economic development, and a focus will be placed on states
achieving attainment, looking at improved processes, and implementation options.
Another aspect of ongoing reviews will be to approve SIPs for regional haze to ensure that states
are making reasonable progress towards their visibility improvement goals, consistent with
statutory obligations. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to assist states that are developing plan
revisions. Section 169 A of the CAA requires the EPA to assess and approve the plans.
The EPA will continue to assist other federal agencies and state and local governments in
implementing the conformity regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 176 of the Clean Air Act.
These regulations require federal agencies, taking actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas,
to determine that the emissions caused by their actions will conform to the SIP.
130
-------
The EPA will work to meet its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source
Review (NSR) obligations pursuant to Section 165 of the Clean Air Act. The EPA will continue to
review and respond to reconsideration requests and (working with the Department of Justice) legal
challenges related to NSR program revisions, take actions necessary to respond to court decisions,
and work with states and industries on NSR applicability issues.
The EPA maintains the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse (RBLC) to help permit applicants and
reviewers make pollution prevention and control technology decisions for stationary air pollution
sources. The RBLC includes data submitted by several U.S. territories and all 50 states on over 200
different air pollutants and 1000 industrial processes. Please see http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/ for
more information.
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide prioritized oversight of state, Tribal, and local permitting
programs' activities as they review permit applications and issue permits, including permits for oil
and gas to minor sources. States will have primary responsibility for Title V permitting, including
the more complex permit actions and inquiries pertaining to permit issues.
The agency will work to identify priorities and efficiencies as called for in the January 24th, 2017
Presidential Memorandum; Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Manufacturing.
One of the EPA's top priorities is to fulfill its CAA and court-ordered obligations. Section 112
of the CAA requires that the emissions control bases for all Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards be reviewed and updated, as necessary, every eight years. In FY
2018, the EPA will continue to conduct risk assessments to determine whether the MACT rules
appropriately protect public health. The program will prioritize its work with an emphasis on
meeting court ordered deadlines.
Through implementation of Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda and
Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, the EPA will look
for ways to repeal, replace, or modify existing regulations to make them less burdensome and to be
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of public and private funds.
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide assistance to state, Tribal, and local agencies for various
technical activities. The EPA uses a broad suite of analytical tools, such as source characterization
analyses, emission factors and inventories, statistical analyses, source apportionment techniques,
quality assurance protocols and audits, improved source testing and monitoring techniques, urban
and regional-scale air quality models, and augmented cost/benefit tools, to assess control strategies.
See http://www.epa.gov/ttn for further details. The agency will maintain the core function of these
tools (e.g., integrated multiple pollutant emissions inventory, air quality modeling platforms, etc.)
to provide the technical underpinnings for more efficient and comprehensive air quality
management by state, local, and Tribal agencies.
In FY 2018, the EPA will strive to maintain baseline analytical capabilities required to develop
effective regulations including: analyzing the economic impacts of regulations and policies;
developing and refining existing emission test methods for measuring pollutants from smokestacks
and other industrial sources; developing and refining existing source sampling measurement
131
-------
techniques to determine rates of emissions from stationary sources; and conducting air quality
modeling that characterizes the atmospheric processes that disperse a pollutant emitted by a source.
Resources from the Science and Technology appropriation component of this program support the
scientific development of these capabilities.
In FY 2018, state and local agencies will have the lead in implementing the National Air Toxics
Trends Sites (NATTS). The NATTS, designed to capture the impacts of widespread pollutants, is
comprised of 27 permanent monitoring sites. See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg. html for
additional information. The EPA will consult on priority data gaps to better assess population
exposure to toxic air pollution.
In FY 2018, the EPA will maintain the Air Quality System (AQS), one of the agency's mission
essential functions, which houses the nation's air quality data and allows for exchanges of data and
technology. The EPA will provide the core support needed for the AQS Data Mart, which provides
access to the scientific community and others to obtain air quality data via the internet. The agency's
national real-time ambient air quality data system (AirNow) will maintain baseline operations. The
EPA will continue to operate and maintain the Emissions Inventory System (EIS), a system used
to quality assure and store current and historical emissions inventory data, and to generate the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is used by the EPA, states, and others to analyze the
public health risks from air toxics and to develop strategies to manage those risks and support multi-
pollutant analysis covering air emissions.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$28,050.0 / -237.1 FTE) This streamlines EPA technical assistance to and support of state,
Tribal, and local air programs, including those that develop and implement clean air plans,
issue air permits, and provide air quality information to the public.
o The agency will focus efforts to ensure timely processing of state-requested SIP actions,
which on average number about 300 per year across the regions,
o In addition, the EPA will limit reanalysis of permitting tools while streamlining
consideration of exceptional event demonstrations.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act.
132
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S
(s/.: io.o)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S5.195.6
S4.906.0
S3.687.0
(S1-219.0)
Total Workyears
21.8
22.0
18.0
-4.0
Program Project Description:
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life by shielding the Earth's surface from harmful
ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Scientific evidence demonstrates that ozone-depleting substances (ODS)
used around the world destroy the stratospheric ozone layer,14 which raises the incidence of skin
cancer and other illnesses.15
The EPA estimates that in the United States alone, the worldwide phase out of ODS will avert
millions of cases of non-fatal and fatal skin cancers (melanoma and non-melanoma), as well as
millions of cataract cases, which is the leading cause of blindness. Full implementation of the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) globally,
including its amendments and adjustments, is expected to avoid more than 280 million cases of skin
cancer, approximately 1.6 million skin cancer deaths, and more than 45 million cases of cataracts in
the United States among individuals born between 1890 and 2100.16
The EPA implements provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) and the
Montreal Protocol, resulting in the reduction of ODS in the U.S. and lower health risks to the
American public. The EPA uses a combination of regulatory and partnership programs to protect
and restore the ozone layer. The CAA provides for a phase-out of production and consumption of
ODS and requires controls on their use, including banning certain emissive uses, requiring
labeling to inform consumer choice, and requiring sound servicing practices for the use of
refrigerants in air conditioning and refrigeration appliances. The CAA also prohibits venting
ODS and their substitutes and requires listing of alternatives that reduce overall risk to human
health or the environment, ensuring that businesses and consumers have alternatives that are safer
for the ozone layer than the chemicals they replace.
As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is committed to ensuring that our domestic
program is at least as stringent as international obligations and to regulating and enforcing the
14 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project-Report No. 56, Geneva, Switzerland. 2014.
15Fahey, D.W., and M.I. Hegglin (Coordinating Lead Authors), Twenty questions and answers about the ozone layer: 2014
Update, In Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 56,
World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. Available on the internet at:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/twentyquestions2014update.pdf.
16 EPA, Updating ozone calculations and emissions profiles for use in the Atmospheric Health Effects Framework Model (2015)
133
-------
terms of the Montreal Protocol domestically. With U.S. leadership, the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol agreed to a more aggressive phase-out for ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) equaling a 47 percent reduction in overall emissions during the period 2010-2040. The
2007 adjustment also calls on Parties to promote the selection of alternatives to HCFCs that
minimize environmental impacts, in particular impacts on climate.17 In 2016, the parties to the
Montreal Protocol agreed to the Kigali Amendment,18 which will globally phase down production
and consumption of HFCs. HFCs are intentionally manufactured fluorinated greenhouse gases used
in all the same sectors as ODS such as air conditioning, refrigeration, fire suppression, solvents,
foam blowing agents, and aerosols. U.S. industry has expressed support for addressing HFCs under
the Montreal Protocol.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In carrying out the requirements of the CAA and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2018, the EPA will
continue to meet its ODS import caps and work toward the gradual reduction in production and
consumption of ODS. To meet FY 2018 targets and out-year targets, the EPA will issue allocations
for HCFC production and import in accordance with the requirements established under CAA
Sections 605 and 606; manage information that industry identifies as Confidential Business
Information (CBI) under CAA Section 603; and implement current regulations concerning the
production, import, and export of ODS and maintenance of the tracking system used to collect the
information. The EPA also will prepare and submit an annual report under Article 7 of the Montreal
Protocol on U.S. consumption and production of ODS.
CAA Section 612 requires continuous review of alternatives through the EPA's Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program19 to find those that pose less overall risk to human health
and the environment and to promote a smoother transition to safer alternatives. Through these
evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for approximately 50
end uses across eight industrial sectors. The EPA will act upon a number of submissions and
petitions in FY 2018 that add new alternatives to the list of acceptable alternatives, for end-uses
where there is an urgent need for more options. The schedule for other approvals will be adjusted
at least until FY 2019 to minimize the risk to the investment made by companies in R&D and
testing phases given that SNAP listings are critical to the commercialization of many substitutes and
alternative technologies in key sectors of use. The EPA also will continue to work towards ensuring
the uptake of safer alternatives and technologies, while supporting innovation, and ensuring
adoption through support for changes to industry codes and standards.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue efforts under CAA Section 608 to reduce emissions of
refrigerants, including HFCs, during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of air
conditioning and refrigeration equipment. The EPA will provide a baseline of compliance
assistance for rules concerning servicing, maintenance, repair, and disposal of air conditioning and
refrigeration appliances.
17 Montreal Protocol Decision X1X/6: Adjustments to the Montreal Protocol with regard to Annex C, Group I, substances
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons).
18Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Kigali 15 October 2016,
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2016/CN.872.2016-Eng.pdf
19 For more information, see: http: //www, epa. gov/ozone/snap/index.html
134
-------
The EPA will continue to support the CAA Section 609 motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC)
servicing program to reduce emissions of refrigerants from MVAC systems. Where industry
consensus standards are available that the EPA considers to be sufficient for protection of human
health and the environment, the EPA may adopt the standards into its regulations through
incorporation by reference. The EPA is aware of such standards developed by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) for recovery equipment for new alternatives and will engage with the
SAE and others on potential options.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to support implementation of the Montreal Protocol
domestically by ensuring U.S. interests are represented at Montreal Protocol meetings by providing
technical expertise. The agency will provide technical expertise for the Montreal Protocol's
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP).
With the decline in allowable HCFC production, a significant stock of air conditioning and
refrigeration equipment that continues to use HCFCs will need access to recovered and
recycled/reclaimed HCFCs to ensure proper servicing. The EPA reviews available market data to
ensure that future demand for virgin HCFCs can be satisfied under production and import caps.
The EPA also will implement other provisions of the Montreal Protocol, including exemption
programs to allow for a continued smooth transition from ODS to alternatives.
Additionally, the EPA will continue to work with federal and international agencies to stem
illegal imports of ODS in order to support a level playing field for companies that produce and
import ODS. The EPA will continue data exchange with U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and Homeland Security Investigations on ODS importers and exporters for Customs to
determine admissibility and target illegal ODS shipments entering the United States as well as
reviewing and approving ODS imports flagged in the Automated Customs Environment.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,219.0 / -4.0 FTE) This streamlines funding to the program related to the following
activities:
o Development of outreach and compliance assistance materials;
o Release of consumption and/or import data in accordance with Freedom of
Information Act requests;
o Adoption of SAE standards for recycling equipment for alternative refrigerants;
o Support to Customs and Border Protection at ports; and
o Lastly, the agency will concentrate assistance to refrigeration and air-conditioning
technicians when they lose their required CAA Section 608 certification by
developing and providing guidance for technicians and training organizations for
recertification.
135
-------
Statutory Authority:
Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
136
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Program Area: Clean Air
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
ss.wr.n
SS.'JII.O
so.o
(SX.VIUI)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SX.907.0
SX.911.0
so.o
(SX.91 1.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol)
facilitates a global phaseout of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The United States
implements its treaty obligations primarily through Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (Multilateral Fund) was
created by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to provide funds to enable developing countries to
comply with their Montreal Protocol obligations to phase out the use of ODS on an agreed
schedule. The United States and other developed countries contribute to the Multilateral Fund.
The U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Fund is split between the EPA and the Department of
State.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will continue
domestic ODS reduction work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,911.0) This funding change eliminates the Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
program.
Statutory Authority:
Title VI of the Clean Air Act.
137
-------
Program Area: Brownfields
138
-------
Brownfields
Program Area: Brownfields
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvirimmcnliil Program A- Mimii'^cnicnl
S 2-1.
S 2x5-1-1.0
SI0.0S2.0
(SV. -If,2.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$24,718.6
$25,544.0
$16,082.0
($9,462.0;
Total Workyears
135.9
149.8
92.6
-57.2
Program Project Description:
Brownfield sites are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. The Brownfields program supports these efforts by awarding grants and providing
technical assistance to states, tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders to work together to
plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields. Approximately 104 million people
(roughly 33 percent of the U.S. population) live within three miles of a Brownfields site that
receives EPA funding.20 As of April 2017, grants awarded by the program have led to over 67,000
acres of idle land made ready for productive use and over 124,300 jobs and $23.6 billion
leveraged.21
This funding supports the program's ability to 1) conduct the annual, high volume cooperative
agreement competitions; 2) award new cooperative agreements; 3) manage the ongoing cooperative
agreement workload; 4) provide technical assistance and ongoing support to grantees; 5)
collaborate with other agency programs; 6) operate the Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment
Exchanges System (ACRES) on-line grantee reporting tool; 7) assist communities to explore land
reuse opportunities under the Land Revitalization Program; 8) develop guidance and tools that
clarify potential environmental cleanup liabilities; and 9) organize a potential National Brownfields
Training Conference.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the Brownfields program will continue to manage over 900 assessments, cleanup,
revolving loan fund (RLF), area-wide planning (AWP), and Environmental Workforce
Development and Job Training (EWDJT) cooperative agreements; as well as state and Tribal
assistance agreements, training, research, and technical assistance agreements, and Land
Revitalization projects.
20 U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management Estimate 2015. Data collected includes: (1) site information as of the end
of FY13; and (2) census data from the 2007-2013 American Community Survey.
https://www.epa.gov/aboiitepa/popiilation-siirroimding-12216-brownfield-sites-received-epa-fiinding
21 The EPA's ACRES database.
139
-------
In FY 2018, the Brownfields program will support the following activities:
• Compete and Award New Cooperative Agreements: Develop and manage five
competitively awarded and two allocation-based cooperative agreement funding
solicitations. Review, select, and award 450 new cooperative agreements which will lead to
over 1,200 projects and approximately $1.lbillion and 5,800 jobs leveraged in future years.
• Oversight and Management of Existing Cooperative Agreements: Continue federal
fiduciary responsibility to manage approximately 900 existing brownfields cooperative
agreements to ensure the terms and conditions of the agreements are met, and provide
limited technical assistance. Provide limited environmental oversight support to grantees
(e.g., site eligibility determinations, review of environmental site assessment and cleanup
reports).
• Technical Assistance: Provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and local communities
in the form of research, training, and analysis. This can lead to cost effective implementation
of brownfields redevelopment projects by providing communities the knowledge necessary
to understand market conditions, economic development and other community
revitalization strategies, and how cleanup and reuse can be catalyzed by small businesses.
• Collaboration: The program will work collaboratively with our partners at the state, Tribal,
and local level on innovative approaches to help achieve land reuse. It also will continue to
develop guidance and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liabilities, thereby
providing greater certainty for parties seeking to reuse these properties. The program also
can provide direct support to parties seeking to reuse contaminated properties in order to
facilitate transactions.
• Accomplishment Tracking: Support the maintenance of the ACRES online grantee
reporting tool. This enables grantees to track accomplishments and report on the number of
sites assessed and cleaned up, and the amount of dollars and jobs leveraged with
brownfields grants.
• Land Revitalization Program Support: Provide limited support for two communities as
part of the EPA's Land Revitalization program. The Land Revitalization program supports
communities in their efforts to restore contaminated lands into sustainable community
assets.
• National Brownfields Training Conference: The EPA will explore options for hosting an
FY 2019 National Brownfields Training Conference, the largest and most comprehensive
conference in the nation focused on environmental revitalization and economic
redevelopment issues.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
140
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,684.0 / -55.7 FTE) This change is a reduction in funding for managing and closing out
assistance agreements.
• (-$778.0 / -1.5 FTE) This reflects a change in data collection analysis and system
enhancements.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, §§ 101, 104,
107, 128; Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
§ 8001.
141
-------
Program Area: Compliance
142
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$143.3
$139.0
$124.0
($15.0)
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
SI03. -13.-1
S Utl.-l-2.lt
(S I5.lt4l.lt)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$844.1
$993.0
$605.0
($388.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$104,700.8
$102,604.0
$87,160.0
($15,444.0)
Total Workyears
510.4
539.6
432.4
-107.2
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Monitoring program promotes compliance with the nation's environmental laws.
Compliance monitoring is comprised of a variety of tools and activities that states and the EPA use
to identify whether regulated entities are in compliance with environmental laws enacted by
Congress, as well as applicable regulations and permit conditions. In addition, compliance
monitoring activities, such as inspections and investigations, are conducted to determine whether
conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment.
Tools used in the compliance monitoring program include:
• Compliance Assistance. The EPA has been providing a modest level of compliance
assistance through seventeen on-line sector-based compliance assistance centers (e.g.,
automotive recycling, agriculture, and transportation) which contain information helpful to
facilities in complying with their environmental obligations.
• Full Electronic Interaction. The EPA has an internet-accessible, national enforcement and
compliance data system, the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which
supports both the compliance monitoring and civil enforcement programs. Currently, the
EPA and states are implementing the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Electronic Reporting Rule through ICIS.22 Phase 1 of the rule was implemented
in FY 2017 for NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Approximately 20 states
currently use the EPA's electronic reporting tool to collect DMRs.
• Smart Tools for Field Inspectors. These are software solutions to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of how the EPA and states conduct RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste)
inspections.
22 For more information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/npdes-ereDortmg.
143
-------
• Compliance Training for the EPA and States. To ensure the quality of compliance
monitoring activities, the EPA develops national policies, updates inspection manuals,
provides required training for inspectors, and issues inspector credentials. The EPA's
National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) has provided on-line, e-learning courses
for 2,500 EPA, state and Tribal inspectors, and has made available over 165 on-line training
courses in the NETI e-Learning Center for the EPA and state, local, and Tribal enforcement
partners.
• Import-Export of Hazardous Waste. The EPA has a role in assisting U.S. exporters and
importers in obtaining foreign government consent that ensures compliance with domestic
regulations and international agreements. The EPA developed electronic data exchange on
a government-to-government basis with Canada and Mexico for the timely and accurate
transmission of notice information. While the vast majority of the hazardous waste trade
occurs with Canada, the United States also has agreements with many other countries.23
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline its compliance monitoring activities such as field inspections,
data tools, and assistance. The EPA will focus on those programs that are not delegated to states,
while providing some targeted oversight and support to state, local, and Tribal programs. To
accomplish this, the agency will prioritize work with states to develop methods that successfully
leverage advances in both monitoring and information technology.
Within the current resourcing levels, the EPA will conduct an analysis to identify and prioritize
necessary updates at existing compliance assistance centers and identify additional sectors that
would potentially benefit from a compliance assistance center. In FY 2018, the EPA will maintain
accessibility to ICIS for the agency, states and the public.
The agency also will implement the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule which covers the e-
reporting rule permitting requirements for the EPA and states on a prolonged schedule. The EPA
will work with states to evaluate and prioritize the development of additional electronic reporting
tools that support states. The EPA's centralized development of electronic reporting tools saves
the states significant resources in development.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10,212.0 / -101.2 FTE) This change streamlines the EPA's Compliance Monitoring
program.
• (-$4,829.0 / -5.2 FTE) This change streamlines the development of tools that can improve
the effectiveness of state compliance monitoring programs.
23 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/international/imp-exp.htm.
144
-------
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL Annex VI); Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act; Atomic Energy Act; Clean Air
Act; Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations; Clean Water Act; Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; Energy
Policy Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act; Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act; National
Environmental Policy Act; Noise Control Act; Oil Pollution Act; Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act; Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
Safe Drinking Water Act; Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act; Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act; North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation; La
Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region.
145
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
146
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$2,444.0
$2,408.0
$2,266.0
($142.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
s r-u:o.v
S r IM5l.lt
SI
(S.IOJSI.O)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$758.0
$619.0
$559.0
($60.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$177,322.9
$174,078.0
$143,295.0
($30,783.0)
Total Workyears
1,064.6
1,080.4
858.7
-221.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA Civil Enforcement program's goal is to assure the fair and effective enforcement of the
nation's environmental laws, to deter violations and promote compliance while working together
with the United States Department of Justice, states, local agencies, and Tribal governments. The
EPA Civil Enforcement program is responsible for maximizing compliance with 12 major
environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and numerous regulatory
requirements under those programs, which apply in various combinations to a universe of
approximately 40 million regulated federal and private entities. The Civil Enforcement program
develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of
environmental laws.
Civil enforcement efforts achieve meaningful results. For example, in 2016, through its civil
enforcement cases, the EPA achieved commitments to treat, minimize, or properly dispose of 62
billion pounds of hazardous waste and estimated pollution reduction commitments totaling 324
million pounds. Also in FY 2016, the EPA enforcement actions resulted in companies investing an
estimated $13.7 billion in actions and equipment to control pollution (injunctive relief).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will focus the program's resources on direct implementation responsibilities
and the most significant violations. Direct implementation responsibilities include programs that
are not delegable or where a state has not sought or obtained the authority to implement a particular
program.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
147
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
~ (-$30,581.0 / -220.2 FTE) This streamlines the Civil Enforcement program. The program
will focus on its core direct implementation responsibilities, with an emphasis on violations
with the most significant public health and environmental impacts.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL Annex VI); Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act; Atomic Energy Act; Clean Air
Act; Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations; Clean Water Act; Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act; Energy Policy Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; Mercury-Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Management Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Noise Control Act;
Oil Pollution Act; Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act; Toxic Substances Control Act;
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act; North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation; La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region.
148
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S-I'.S-I-I. -
S -1(1.22x1)
S40J4IM
(S5.HH4M)
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$6,883.7
$7,110.0
$4,161.0
($2,949.0;
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$54,728.4
$53,335.0
$44,502.0
($8,833.0)
Total Workyears
247.8
268.9
194.4
-74.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute violations of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
associated violations of Title 18 of the United States Code such as fraud, conspiracy, false
statements, and obstruction of justice. The EPA's criminal enforcement agents (Special agents) do
this through targeted investigation of criminal conduct, committed by individual and corporate
defendants, that threatens public health and the environment.
Within the Criminal Enforcement program, forensic scientists, attorneys, technicians, engineers,
and other program experts assist Special Agents. The EPA's criminal enforcement attorneys
provide legal and policy support for all of the program's responsibilities, including forensics and
expert witness preparation, information law, and personnel law to ensure that program activities
are carried out in accordance with legal requirements and agency policies. These efforts support
environmental crimes prosecutions primarily by the United States Attorneys and the Department
of Justice's Environmental Crimes Section. In FY 2016, the conviction rate for criminal defendants
was 94 percent.24
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline its Criminal Enforcement program. The Criminal Enforcement
program will continue to collaborate and coordinate with the Civil Enforcement program to ensure
that the EPA's Enforcement program responds to violations as effectively as possible. The program
will focus its resources on the most egregious cases (e.g., significant human health, environmental,
and deterrent impacts), while balancing its overall case load across all environmental statutes.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
24 For additional information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/enforcenient/enforcenient-anniial-results-fiscal-vear-fv-2016.
149
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,884.0 / -59.3 FTE) This streamlines the EPA's Criminal Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
Title 18 of the U.S.C.; 18 U.S.C. § 3063; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as
amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute);
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Air
Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act;
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18 General
Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Powers of Environmental Protection Agency
(18 U.S.C. 3063).
150
-------
Environmental Justice
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
V). '2-1.0
so.o
(Sf>. '2-1.0)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$681.7
$544.0
$0.0
($544.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,029.3
$7,268.0
$0.0
($7,268.0)
Total Workyears
35.8
40.3
0.0
-40.3
Program Project Description:
The Environmental Justice (EJ) program fosters environmental and public health in communities
disproportionately burdened by pollution by integrating and addressing issues of environmental
justice in the EPA's programs and policies. This program includes partnerships with intra-agency
programs and collaboration with interagency partners to develop guidance documents and tools to
incorporate environmental justice considerations into decision making.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program inFY2018. EJ work impacting the entire
agency will be incorporated into future policy work within the Integrated Environmental Strategy
program, which is a part of the EPA's Office of the Administrator.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,724.0 / -36.8 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Environmental Justice program.
Environmental Justice will continue to be supported in the work done at the EPA, as
applicable.
Statutory Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA); Clean Air Act; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Pollution Prevention Act.
151
-------
NEPA Implementation
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Liniroiimciitdl Program A- Man axemen 1
Sl.\
S Ih. I~v.il
S Li.-IVfi.il
(S2.fiflJ.il)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$15,761.3
$16,179.0
$13,496.0
($2,683.0;
Total Workyears
106.3
104.8
80.5
-24.3
Program Project Description:
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and as mandated by Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA's NEPA Implementation program coordinates the environmental review
of major federal actions. The NEPA Implementation Program also guides the EPA's compliance
with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant statutes and Executive
Orders. The program also manages the official Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filing system
for all federal EISs, in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ).25 Additionally, the program manages the review of Environmental
Impact Assessments of non-governmental activities in Antarctica, in accordance with the Antarctic
Science, Tourism and Conservation Act.
The program uses and promotes NEPAssist, a geographic information system (GIS) tool developed
to assist users (the EPA, other federal agencies, and the public) with environmental reviews under
NEPA. Approximately 900 users visit the website each month and 83 percent are return visitors.
The EPA also promotes e-NEPA, a web-based system for federal agencies to file EISs and to make
comments on EISs accessible to the public on a centralized public website.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with OMB, CEQ, and other federal agencies to evaluate ways to
coordinate, streamline, and improve the NEPA process. Additionally, the EPA will work with
agencies as they implement the FAST-41 Act, which sets requirements to streamline infrastructure
permitting project reviews.26 The EPA also will work to implement the Executive Order:
"Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects."27
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
25 Memorandum of Agreement No. 1 Between The Council on Environmental Quality and The Environmental Protection Agency,
October 1977.
26 For additional information, refer to: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf.
27 For additional information, refer to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the~Dress-offiee/2017/01/24/exeeutiye~order-expediting-
environmental-reviews-and-approvals-high
152
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,683.0 / -24.3 FTE) This streamlines the NEPA Implementation program.
Statutory Authority:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Clean Air Act, § 309; Antarctic Science, Tourism,
and Conservation Act; Clean Water Act, § 511(c); Endangered Species Act; National Historic
Preservation Act; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act; Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act Title 41.
153
-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
154
-------
Great Lakes Restoration
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S 2NN.OVI.li
S 2VV.4MO
so.o
(S2VV.-/MU)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S288.091.8
S299.430.0
so.o
(S299.430.0)
Total Workyears
78.7
71.7
0.0
-71.7
Program Project Description:
Implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) restores and maintains the
environmental integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
the eight Great Lakes states and Tribal and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring
the Great Lakes from within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$299,430.0 / -71.7 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative program. This change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental
efforts and programs to state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Great Lakes Legacy Act; Clean Water Act; Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; Clean Air
Act; Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation.
155
-------
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S~~.5-IJ.fl
so.o
(S -2.MI.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S77,543.8
S72.861.0
so.o
(S72.861.0)
Total Workyears
39.7
39.9
0.0
-39.9
Program Project Description:
The Chesapeake Bay program is a voluntary partnership, initiated in 1983, that now includes the
Chesapeake Bay watershed states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia), the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the federal
government. The EPA represents the federal government on the partnership's Chesapeake
Executive Council (EC), maintains a program office, and works with the EC to coordinate activities
of the partnership.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington D.C. to continue to make progress in restoring the
Bay from within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$72,861.0 / -39.9 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Chesapeake Bay program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act.
156
-------
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
S-1.0/10. -
S-I.SIO.O
so.o
(S-I.SI0.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S4.600.7
S4.810.0
so.o
(S4.X10.0)
Total Workyears
1.8
1.9
0.0
-1.9
Program Project Description:
The EPA collaborates with agencies and non-governmental organizations to implement the seven-
point Bay Delta Action Plan (2012)28 designed to protect and restore water quality, aquatic life, and
ecosystem processes in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The EPA assists the
State Water Resources Control Board with the comprehensive update of the Bay Delta Water
Quality Control Plan.29
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
the state of California and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the San Francisco
Bay from within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,810.0 / -1.9 FTE) This funding change eliminates the San Francisco Bay program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act.
28 EPA Bay Delta Action Plan (2012). http://www2.epa.gov/sfbav-delta/bay-delta-action-plan
29 State Water Board Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
http://www.waterboards.ca.Eov/wateiTights/water issues/programs/bav delta/
157
-------
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
so.o
(S 2-.V-/-.U)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S28.046.3
S27.947.0
so.o
(S27,947.0)
Total Workyears
5.7
6.0
0.0
-6.0
Program Project Description:
The Puget Sound Program works with partners to implement the Puget Sound Action Agenda, the
long-term plan for Puget Sound basin protection and restoration. In addition, the Puget Sound
Program funds assistance agreements with the federally recognized tribes in Puget Sound, Tribal
consortia, and the North West Indian Fisheries Commission.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
state, Tribal, and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Puget Sound from
within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$27,947.0 / -6.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Puget Sound program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act.
158
-------
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S.W2.0
so.o
(S
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S.VW5.6
S.VW2.0
so.o
(S.VW2.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA and the States of Connecticut and New York work in partnership to restore and protect
Long Island Sound. The EPA assists states in implementing the Long Island Sound's
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan by coordinating the cleanup and restoration
actions of the Long Island Sound Study Management Conference.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage Long Island
Sound states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Sound from within core
water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,932.0) This funding change eliminates the Long Island Sound program. This change
returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and
local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act.
159
-------
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S .\jV2.j
S -l.-l~j.tt
Stt.tt
(S-f.-l~j.tt)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S5,392.3
S4.47.V0
so.o
isi.r.vih
Total Workyears
10.8
14.3
0.0
-14.3
Program Project Description:
The efforts of the EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program Office (GMPO) are dedicated to the protection,
restoration, and enhancement of the water bodies and coastal environments associated with the
greater Gulf of Mexico region.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
the five Gulf of Mexico states to continue to make progress in restoring the Gulf of Mexico from
within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,473.0 / -14.3 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Gulf of Mexico program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act.
160
-------
Geographic Program: South Florida
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SI.
S l.'OI.O
so.o
(SI. -(>1.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI,733.0
SI.701.0
so.o
(SI,701.0)
Total Workyears
0.8
1.4
0.0
-1.4
Program Project Description:
The EPA's South Florida program coordinates restoration activities in South Florida, including the
Florida Keys.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
state, Tribal, and local entities to continue to make progress in protecting and restoring sensitive
aquatic ecosystems in South Florida from within core water programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,701.0 / -1.4 FTE) This funding change eliminates the South Florida program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990; Clean Water Act; Water
Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
161
-------
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S-/..W.W
S -1.3 V 1.0
so.o
(S-IJV1.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S4.395.0
S4.391.0
so.o
(S4..W 1.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA supports efforts to protect Lake Champlain through partnerships to implement the
"Opportunities for Action" management plan (revised in 2010). The plan was developed to bring
together people with diverse interests in the lake to create a comprehensive pollution prevention,
control, and restoration plan for protecting the future of the Lake Champlain Basin.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage New York
and Vermont to continue to make progress in restoring Lake Champlain from within core water
programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,391.0) This funding change eliminates the Lake Champlain program. This change
returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and
local entities.
Statutory Authority:
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty; Clean Water Act.
162
-------
Geographic Program: Other
Program Area: Geographic Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S~JX2.ll
S~J "').<)
so.o
(S ~J ~V.U)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S7.382.0
S7.379.0
so.o
(S7.379.0)
Total Workyears
3.8
4.9
0.0
-4.9
Program Project Description:
Under this program, the agency develops and implements approaches to mitigate pollution for
specific and targeted geographic areas, including the Northwest Forest Program, Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, and the Southeast New England Coastal Watershed
Restoration Program.
Northwest Forest Program
The Northwest Forest Program supports interagency and intergovernmental efforts that coordinate
and leverage resources for water quality and drinking water efforts in seven30 western states.
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program, through a collaborative and voluntary effort,
strives to restore ecological health by developing and funding restoration projects within the sixteen
parishes in the basin.
Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program (SNECWRP)
The Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program serves as a hub to enable
protection and restoration of the coastal watersheds of Southeast New England, including the
ecosystem services that sustain the region's communities.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will encourage
states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring these major aquatic ecosystems
from within core water programs.
30 California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
163
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7,379.0 / -4.9 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Geographic Other program. This
change returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to
state and local entities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act.
164
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
165
-------
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S -1.02x3
S.\S'0.0
SJJI2.0
(S3xS.fl)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S4.025.3
S.V 870.0
S3.512.0
(S358.0)
Total Workyears
11.7
11.7
11.3
-0.4
Program Project Description:
This program supports the EPA's coordination and communication activities related to homeland
security. The White House, Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have
defined expectations for the EPA in the event of a homeland security incident through a series of
statutes, presidential directives, and national plans. The Office of Homeland Security (OHS),
located in the Administrator's office, leads and coordinates the EPA's engagement with the White
House and other federal departments and agencies on the development of new homeland security
policy and requirements.
The EPA uses both the Homeland Security Executive Steering Committee, composed of senior
executives from Headquarters offices and the Regions, and the Homeland Security Collaborative
Network (HSCN), a cross-agency leadership group, to support its ability to implement this broad
range of homeland security responsibilities, ensure consistent development and implementation of
homeland security policies and procedures, avoid duplication, and build a network of partnerships.
As the EPA Federal Intelligence Coordination Office (FICO), OHS coordinates analytic
intelligence support capacity across the Agency to meet EPA requirements and EPA whole of
government obligations.
Homeland security information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the agencywide
information security and infrastructure activities, which are managed in the Information Security
and Information Technology (IT)/Data Management programs. These IT support programs also
enable video contact among localities, EPA Headquarters, Regional offices, and laboratories in
emergency situations.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA's Homeland Security Program will:
• Ensure appropriate Agency representation in various White House and other federal
homeland security policy activities.
166
-------
• Support federal, state, Tribal, and local efforts to prevent, protect, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other emergencies by providing
leadership and coordination across the EPA's program offices and regions.
• Ensure a coordinated approach to the EPA's homeland security activities and resources
that align with government-wide homeland security priorities and requirements.
• Maintain the Agency's level of preparedness to respond to and recover from a significant
event through maintenance of personnel and equipment capabilities and capacities.
• Focus on filling critical knowledge and technology gaps that may be essential for an
effective EPA response, including working with our interagency partners to define
collective capabilities and resources that may contribute to closing common homeland
security gaps.
• Provide the EPA end-user with relevant, accurate, reliable, objective, and timely
intelligence bearing on matters of environmental policy and regulation and domestic threats
where the EPA functions to preserve or assist in the restoration of human health and the
environment.
• Continue phased implementation of Executive Order 13587 (,Structural Reforms to
Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and
Safeguarding of Classified Information) to meet the main pillars of classified information
protection with a focus on the implementation of an Insider Threat Program (ITP) to
address and mitigate threats to national security.
• Track emerging national/homeland security issues, through close coordination with the
U.S. Intelligence Community, to anticipate and avoid crisis situations and target the
Agency's efforts proactively against threats to the United States.
The EPA's FY 2018 resources support national cybersecurity efforts through monitoring across
the agency's IT infrastructure to detect, remediate, and eradicate malicious software or Advanced
Persistent Threats (APT) from the EPA's computer and data networks and through improved
detection capabilities. The EPA will enhance internal Computer Security Incident Response
Capability (CSIRC) to ensure rapid identification and reporting of suspicious activity and will
increase training and awareness of cybersecurity threats. The EPA's personnel are active
participants in Government Forum of Incident Response Teams (GFIRST), a DHS-led group of
experts from incident response and security response teams. Indicators and warnings are shared
between the EPA incident responders and their cleared counterparts in other agencies and with the
Intelligence Community.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
167
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$126.0 / -0.4 FTE) This change reduces resources for activities related to communication,
policies, and procedures to support and coordinate homeland security efforts across the
agency.
• (-$232.0) This change reduces resources to coordinate IT efforts supporting homeland
security across the agency. Savings will be achieved from refocusing on core functions
that improve foundational capabilities and close gaps in IT security architecture.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), §§ 1001, 2001, 3001, 3005; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA); Clean Water Act, §§ 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107; Clean Air Act, §§ 102, 103, 104,
108; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), §§ 201, 301, 401; Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), §§ 136a-136y; Bio Terrorism Act of 2002, §§ 303, 305, 306, 307;
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act; Defense
Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act; Food Safety Modernization Act, § 208.
168
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$9,807.2
$10,497.0
$0.0
($10,497.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
Sf>2 I
$970.0
S 0.0
(S'J'O.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$10,434.3
$11,467.0
$0.0
($11,467.0)
Total Workyears
23.6
23.1
0.0
-23.1
Program Project Description:
This program supports the EPA's efforts to coordinate the protection of the nation's critical water
infrastructure from threats and all-hazard events through effective information sharing and
dissemination.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The most critical work will
be performed in the S&T Preparedness, Response, and Recovery program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$970.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reduction eliminates the EPM Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection program.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§ 1431-1435; Clean Water Act; Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA), §§ 301-305.
169
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S-I.'JS'.O
(S3 MO)
Science & Technology
So 51.0
$551.0
$500.0
($51.0)
Building and Facilities
$7,366.2
$6,664.0
$6,176.0
($488.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
$833.6
$1,084.0
$542.0
($542.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,737.8
$13,635.0
$12,204.0
($1,431.0)
Total Workyears
8.1
12.2
12.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA Homeland Security Program provides for the operations of a federally mandated Personal
Identity Verification (PIV) program, known as the EPA Personnel Access and Security System
(EPASS). The EPASS procedures, which adhere to the requirements as set forth in Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), ensure the agency is in compliance with the
government-wide standard for the issuance of secure and reliable forms of identification to federal
employees and contractors who require access to federally controlled facilities and networks.
The National Security Information (NSI) Program supports the management and oversight of the
EPA's classified information for its federal workforce and contractors. The program ensures federal
mandates are followed to safeguard national security information, conduct federally mandated
training, and conduct NSI inspections.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
As part of nationwide protection of buildings and critical infrastructure, the EPA performs
vulnerability assessments on its facilities each year. Through this program, the agency also
recommends security risk mitigations, oversees access control measures, determines physical
security measures for new construction and leases, and manages the lifecycle of security equipment.
The EPASS Program ensures the agency is undertaking every effort to enhance safety, security,
and efficiency by more effectively controlling access into EPA controlled physical space and the
EPA's networks. EPASS provides the EPA the ability to produce and maintain secure and reliable
forms of identification as required per HSPD-12, for all EPA employees and contractors.
The protection of NSI is accomplished through policies and procedures in compliance with
applicable federal mandates. Mandatory security education and training is completed including but
not limited to NSI and SCI training (initial, refresher, and termination). Oversight of the program
is achieved though federally mandated nationwide inspections and assessments of Program Offices,
Regions, and Laboratories that handle NSI and SCI. The inspections include the review and
170
-------
assessment of the security classified infrastructure, classified holdings, and training; overseeing the
build-out, and accreditation of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) for classified operations; work with
federal partners on the accreditation of sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs); and
responding to data calls.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$350.0) This change focuses the agency on performing the highest priority annual facility
assessments.
Statutory Authority:
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Homeland Security Act of 2002;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
171
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
172
-------
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
Sh.252."
S2JHS.fl
(S-IJI '.())
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$6,252.7
$6,535.0
$2,018.0
($4,517.0;
Total Workyears
19.9
21.8
6.9
-14.9
Program Project Description:
The program coordinates and advances the protection of children's environmental health across the
EPA to reinforce the agency's mission to protect human health through: assisting with developing
regulations; improving risk assessment and science policy; implementing community-level
programs; and tracking and communicating measures, indicators, and progress on children's health.
The children's health protection effort is directed by the EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks
to Children, Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children's Health from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks, the EPA's memorandum EPA's Leadership in Children's Environmental
Health, and the other existing guidance.31 Legislative mandates such as the Toxic Substances
Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act and the Food Quality Protection Act also direct the agency to protect children and
other vulnerable life stages.32
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the Children's Health program will:
• Continue to serve as co-lead for the interagency efforts of the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children alongside the Department of
Health and Human Services. This effort will be limited to co-chairing the Senior Steering
Committee - including the Coordinated Federal Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic
Asthma Disparities,33 Advancing Healthy Housing - A Strategy for Action (a report from
the Federal Healthy Homes Work Group)34 and Key Federal Programs to Reduce
31 For more information: https://www.epa.gov/childrenMstory-childreris-environmental-health-protection-epa.
32 The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs the EPA to consider potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
(including infants, children and pregnant women) when evaluating chemicals for risk. The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) requires the EPA to strengthen protection of children by considering the risk to the most vulnerable populations
and life stages when setting standards. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
requires the Administrator to establish a system for ranking grant applications for "Brownfields revitalization funding" that includes,
as one of many criteria, the health or welfare of children and pregnant women. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996
amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
to include stricter safety standards for pesticides, especially for infants and children, and a complete reassessment of all existing
pesticide tolerances.
33 The Asthma Disparities Action Plan: http://www.epa.gov/childrenstaskforce/federal asthma disparities action plan.pdf.
34 The Flealthy Flousing Strategy for Action: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program offices/healthy homes/advhh.
173
-------
Childhood Lead Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts,35 Implementation
efforts associated with federal initiatives may be supported by other Task Force agencies or
EPA program offices.
• Address the potential for unique exposures, health effects, and health risks in children
during the development of agency regulations and policies with limited participation on
regulatory workgroups.
• Coordinate one in-person plenary meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee (CHPAC).
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,200.0 / -14.0 FTE) This streamlines activities related to the Children's Health program
including: 1) the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units; 2) grants to state or local
organizations; 3) IRIS reviews; 4) the President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children or initiating any new interagency strategies; 5)
regionally-selected community-based projects addressing local children's environmental
health issues; and 6) indicators presented in America's Children and the Environment36 and
America's Children: Key National Indicators of Weil-Being.37
• (-$317.0 / -0.9 FTE) This change streamlines activities related to Children's Heath program
including: implementation of community-based programs, assisting with assessing the
needs of children in the regulatory development process, and assessing children's outcomes
in research, science policy, and outreach.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Food Quality Protection Act.
35 Key Federal Programs to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Eliminate Associated Health Impacts Report:
https://ptfceh.niehs.nih.gov/features/assets/files/kev federal programs to reduce childhood lead exposures and eliminate asso
ciated health impactspresidents 508.pdf.
36 America's Children and the Environment (ACE) is EPA's report presenting data on children's environmental health:
https: //www.epa. go v/ace.
37 The EPA contributes data and analysis of child well-being to the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics'
annual report, America's Children: Key National Indicators ofWell-Being: https://www.childstats.gov/index.asp.
174
-------
Environmental Education
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SJOJJS.S
SS.OSxO
so.o
(S S.fiXxO)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 0.138.8
S8.685.0
so.o
(S8.685.0)
Total Workyears
10.4
11.1
0.0
-11.1
Program Project Description:
This program ensures that Environmental Education (EE), based on science and effective education
practices, is used as a tool to promote the protection of human health and the environment,
encourage student engagement through service projects, advance community engagement and
empowerment, and support the EPA's priorities and programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The agency is eliminating its Environmental Education program in order to focus on core mission
environmental work. In recognition of the significant guidance and financial support the EE
program has provided to non-profit organizations, local education agencies, universities,
community colleges, and state and local environmental agencies, funding for some of the
environmental stewardship activities could be leveraged at the state or local level.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,685.0 / -11.1 FTE) This eliminates the Environmental Education program.
Statutory Authority:
National Environmental Education Act (NEEA); Clean Air Act, § 103; Clean Water Act, § 104;
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), § 8001; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), § 1442; Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 10; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), § 20.
175
-------
Executive Management and Operations
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
NVVAV.-/
N -Ifi.VMO
N ,i~./«/!.«
(SV.S2-I.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S47.798.4
S46.930.0
S3 7,106.0
(S9.824.0)
Total Workyears
300.5
309.4
223.6
-85.8
Program Project Description:
This program includes various offices and functions that provide executive and logistical support
to the EPA's Administrator. In addition to the Administrator's Immediate Office (10), resources in
this program support four headquarters offices that help the agency communicate and coordinate
its work to protect human health and the environment, including the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR), Office of Administrative and Executive Services, Office of
the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of Public Affairs.
This program also supports the EPA's Regional Administrators' offices. The headquarters and
regional offices' activities link the agency's engagement with outside entities, including: Congress,
state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, national and community associations,
and the public. These activities include management, coordination, and establishing policy.
Within this program, key functions include: responding to Congressional requests for information;
coordinating and providing outreach and liaising with state and local governments, agricultural and
rural communities; and maintaining public information and communication with the press. This
program also supports administrative management services involving correspondence control and
records management systems, human resources management, budget formulation and execution,
and information technology management services.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the 10 will continue providing management, leadership and direction to all of the
EPA's programs and activities and develop the guidance necessary to ensure achievement of the
agency's core statutory responsibilities. In FY 2018, 10 resources will primarily support critical
needs for staff, including travel and workforce support.
The OCIR (which consists of the Office of Congressional Affairs and the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations) serves as the EPA's principal point of contact for Congress, states,
and local governments. OCIR serves as a liaison with these constituencies on the agency's major
programs (e.g., Air, Water, and Pesticides) and intergovernmental issues. OCIR also serves as the
advocate and ombudsman for the regional offices. OCIR and its regional counterparts serve as
direct contacts for Congress and state and local government officials during environmental
emergencies, keeping these constituencies abreast of the impacts and EPA's response. In FY 2016,
176
-------
OCIR managed over one thousand letters from members of Congress and governors, processed
FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act), and prepared senior leaders for hearings (65 hearings in FY
2016, and 35 hearings in FY 2015) on a wide range of environmental issues.
In FY 2018, OCIR's Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) will prepare EPA officials for
hearings, oversee responses to written inquiries and oversight requests from members of Congress,
and coordinate and provide technical assistance and briefings on legislative areas of interest to
members of Congress and their staff. In addition, OCA will coordinate with the White House's
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Council for Environmental Quality on
issues related to achieving the agency's goals and priorities.
The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) facilitates the exchange of information between the EPA and
the public, media, Congress, and state and local governments; broadly communicates the EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment; assists in public awareness of environmental
issues; and informs EPA employees of important issues that affect them. OPA generally responds
to approximately 8,900 media inquiries annually, oversees the production of more than 300 videos
annually, and manages more than 500,000 webpages on EPA's website.
In FY 2018, OPA will inform the media of agency initiatives and deliver timely, accurate
information. The office will continue to update the agency's internet site to provide stakeholders
with transparent, accurate and comprehensive information on EPA's activities and policies. OPA
will continue using multimedia and new media tools to provide stakeholders with information. The
office also will work with EPA's programs to improve employee communications and
collaboration, update the agency's intranet site, and use other tools to provide agency information
to employees.
As the central administrative management component of the Administrator's Office (AO), the
Office of Administrative and Executive Services (OAES) provides advice, tools, and assistance to
the AO's programmatic operations, including: human resources management, budget and financial
management, information technology and security, and audit management.
The Office of the Executive Secretariat (OEX) manages the AO's correspondence, records
management and FOIA activities. The OEX correspondence team processes correspondence for the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator and reviews and prepares documents for their signature.
The team also manages the Administrator's primary email account. Finally, OEX operates the
Correspondence Management System, which provides paperless workflow, tracking, and records
management capabilities to more than three thousand registered users agencywide.
In FY 2018, the OEX will maintain critical administrative support to the Administrator, Deputy
Administrator, senior agency officials, and staff in order to comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements under the Federal Records Act (FRA), FOIA, and related statutes and regulations.
The OEX will complete the development and acquisition of the next-generation correspondence
tracking tool and will implement the system agencywide.
177
-------
Funding and FTE for the Office of Public Engagement are eliminated in FY 2018.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,029.0 / -73.8 FTE) This funding change streamlines the Executive Management
program. The agency will focus on the core legal requirements, federal-only and national
efforts, providing support to states in implementing environmental laws, and easing
regulatory burden.
• (-$1,795.0 / -12.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Office of Public Engagement.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA).
178
-------
Exchange Network
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
SI '.()(><>.>
sio.vs-U)
sn.'s-i.o
(S 5.200.(1)
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$1,291.4
$1,325.0
$838.0
($487.0;
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$18,357.9
$18,309.0
$12,622.0
($5,687.0)
Total Workyears
31.3
30.2
30.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN) is a standards-based, secure
approach for the EPA and its state, Tribal and territorial partners to exchange and share
environmental data over the Internet. Capitalizing on advanced technology, data standards, open-
source software, shared and portal services for the E-Enterprise business strategy, and reusable
tools and applications, the EN offers its partners tremendous capabilities for managing and
analyzing environmental data more effectively and efficiently, leading to improved decision
making.
The Central Data Exchange (CDX)38 is the largest component of the EN program and serves as the
point of entry on the Exchange Network for environmental data transactions with the agency. CDX
provides a set of core shared services that promote a leaner and more cost-effective enterprise
architecture for the agency by avoiding the creation of duplicative services. It also provides a set
of value-added features and services that enable faster and more efficient transactions for internal
and external clients of the EPA, resulting in reduced burden.
CDX data exchange services are leveraged by the EPA's programs, regions, states, tribes, territories
and other federal agencies to meet their different business needs. With CDX, a stakeholder can
submit data through one centralized point of access, exchange data with target systems using Web
services and utilize publishing services to share information collected by the EPA and other
stakeholders. By managing loosely connected and interoperable services, data exchange needs can
be met using one or all of the available services such as:
• User registration;
• External user identity management;
• Electronic signature;
• Encryption and transmission;
• Virtual exchange services (VES); and
• Data quality assurance.
38 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa. gov/cdx/.
179
-------
Working in conceit with CDX are the EPA's System of Registries, which are centralized shared
data services to improve data quality in EPA, state, and Tribal program data, while promoting
burden reduction for the reporting community. The registries manage shared data centrally for reuse
by the following EN partners:
• Facility Registry Service (FRS);
• Substance Registry Services (SRS);
• TRIBES;
• Laws and Regulations Services (LRS);
• Terminology Services (TS);
• Reusable Component Services (RCS);
• Environmental Dataset Gateway (EDG);
• Registry of EPA Applications, Models, and Databases (READ); and
• Data Element Registry Services (DERS)
These shared data services catalog entities routinely referenced by the EPA and EN partners, from
commonly regulated facilities and substances to the current list of federally recognized tribes. They
identify the standard or official names for these assets, which when integrated into EPA and partner
applications fosters data consistency and data quality as well as enabling data integration. By
integrating these shared data services into their online reporting forms, the EPA and its EN partners
make it easier for the reporting community to discover the correct information to submit, reducing
burden, which enables reuse by partner programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide baseline functions for the Exchange Network IT systems.
Schedules and plans for upgrades and modernization will be adjusted to align with capacity. As
part of the E-Enterprise business strategy, the EPA will continue to carry out the following projects
under the Exchange Network program: expanding the roll out of Federated Identity Management
system for the EPA and its partners; developing shared facility identification services that improve
quality and reduce burden on states and tribes; developing initial services for EPA's Laws and
Regulations registry, which will standardize identification of and associations between regulations,
laws, and EPA's programs; and deploying reusable electronic signature services to streamline
Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) compliance. Advancements in data
transport services, such as Virtual Exchange Services, will continue to provide cloud-based
solutions for the EPA's state and Tribal partners.
In FY 2018 the EPA will:
• Conduct robust outreach activities to increase awareness of CROMERR services and the
savings to states and tribes from using these services; and
• Approve CROMERR applications from authorized programs that propose to use the EPA's
shared CROMERR services and assist co-regulators with integrating these services into
their systems.
180
-------
CROMERR activities are intended to assist states and tribes in the development activities
associated with establishing a point of presence, exchanging data on the Network, and supporting
local electronic reporting programs in a more cost effective way. The proven success of this strategy
is illustrated by past improvements in performance measures, which include the number of states,
Tribes and territories exchanging data with CDX (from 63 in FY 2011 to 125 in FY 2016) and
unique active users (up from 56,200 in FY 2011 to 116,636 in FY 2016).
In addition, the EPA will prioritize areas of support for the System of Registries and partner
applications. Keeping the information current in the registries requires constant maintenance and
research. This includes:
• An adjusted schedule for priority updates to the EPA's enterprise dataset registry, the
Environmental Dataset Gateway, to meet the EPA's priority of improving data accessibility,
achieve compliance with Open Data Policy requirements (OMB M-13-13) and pursue the
establishment of an administrative dataset registry; and
• Maintaining the list of previously entered IT resources through its catalog of IT services
(e.g., widgets, Web services, reusable code). The Reusable Component Services is a
resource that enables the EPA and its EN partners to reuse standard system functions in
whole or in part, thus saving money and time for states and Tribal governments and the
EPA.
The EPA also will continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to maintain systems that support the importation process of products that
are of dual interest to the EPA and CBP. Due to the successful conclusion of the limited pilot test
for electronic reporting and processing of EPA-regulated imports for vehicles and engines,
pesticides and toxic substances, the EPA will continue to support the program in FY 2018. Such
electronic reporting will aid regional enforcement coordinators by automating what is currently a
manual review process and allow them to focus on key high-value monitoring and targeting
activities for noncompliant imports.
In FY 2018, the Exchange Network program will continue to be a pivotal component of the E-
Enterprise for the Environment strategy that supports business process change agencywide. E-
Enterpriseis a transformative 21st century strategy-jointly governed by states, tribes, and the EPA
- that rethinks how government agencies deliver environmental protection. Under this strategy, the
agency will streamline its business processes and systems to reduce reporting burden on states and
regulated facilities, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental programs for
the EPA, states and tribes. In this context, the agency will maintain the E-Enterprise Portal that
transform the EN to a more open platform of services and make environmental data reporting,
sharing and analysis faster, simpler and less expensive.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
181
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,200.0) This reduces the collection and exchange of environmental data with states,
tribes, and regulated entities; modifies the timeline to address required modifications to the
Exchange Network IT systems; reduces quality assurance of registries; and refocuses
modernization efforts.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act
(CWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA); Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA);
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA); The Privacy Act of 1974;
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
182
-------
Small Business Ombudsman
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
S2j~a.il
s l.wxo
s I.wo.n
(SJ0.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S2.378.0
SI.995.0
SI.965.0
(S.?0.0)
Total Workyears
4.6
4.9
4.6
-0.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Small Business Ombudsman program includes both the Asbestos and Small Business
Ombudsman (ASBO) and the small business activities located in the Office of Policy's Office of
Regulatory Policy and Management. The ASBO serves as the agency's leading advocate for small
business regulatory issues through its partnership with the EPA Regional Small Business Liaisons,
state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAP) nationwide and hundreds of
small business trade associations. These partnerships provide the information and perspective the
EPA needs to help small businesses achieve their environmental goals.
The Small Business Ombudsman is a comprehensive program that provides networks, resources,
tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses.39 The program also
assists the EPA's program offices with analysis and consideration of the impacts of its regulatory
actions on small businesses, helps identify less burdensome alternatives, and leads the EPA's
implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Under the RFA or SBREFA, the EPA evaluates
the effects of its regulations on small businesses and engages with small entity representatives, the
Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration to help them understand
the potential impacts of rules and identify less burdensome alternatives for rulemakings that may
affect small businesses.
The core program functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating
and supporting the program's hotline and homepage, participating in the EPA's program and
Regional Offices' small business-related meetings, and supporting internal and external small
business activities. The program helps small businesses learn about new actions and developments
within the EPA and helps the agency learn about the concerns and needs of small businesses. The
program also provides technical assistance through the ASBO in the form of workshops,
conferences, hotlines, and training forums designed to help small businesses become better
environmental performers.
Beginning in FY 2018, this program will support the required functions of the Small Business
Contracting program as mandated under Section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
644(k). As prescribed under that section, the program provides expertise ensuring small business
39For more information: http://www.epa.gov/resoiirces-small-biismesses/asbestos-small-biismess-ombudsman.
183
-------
prime and subcontract opportunities to expand the competitive supplier base for carrying out the
agency's mission. The program offers statutorily required counselling to the EPA contracting
community on all aspects of the acquisition cycle. It also affords statutorily mandated advocacy
and technical assistance to the various categories of small businesses, including, disadvantaged and
women-owned small businesses; certified small businesses located in Historically Underutilized
Business Zones (HUBZones); and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).
In addition, resources under this program will provide national outreach, education and assistance
to increase the utilization of businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals in procurements funded under EPA financial assistance agreements. The
underlying enabling statutes establish an 8 percent and 10 percent goal for Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) participation in certain EPA-funded projects. Specifically, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 7601, establishes a 10 percent DBE goal for Clean Air Act
research projects. Similarly, Public Law 102-389, 42 U.S. C § 4370d, establishes an 8 percent DBE
Goal for prime and subcontracts awarded in support of all other authorized programs. The DBE
program services are aimed at guiding the agency and its financial assistance recipients to enhance
DBE opportunities consistent with those goals. It further assists in monitoring program compliance.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the Small Business Ombudsman program will:
• Expand the quality and efficiency of technical and regulatory assistance. The ASBO is
implementing a new internal and external outreach program focused on building a
knowledge base of EPA and small business community needs and impacts; unifying and
coordinating programs and activities by sharing information and leveraging resources; and
engaging and expanding small business involvement in the regulatory process.
• Support and promote the EPA's Small Business Strategy by (1) encouraging small
businesses, states, and trade associations to comment on the EPA's proposed regulatory
actions, and (2) providing updates on the agency's rulemaking activities in the monthly
Smallbiz@EPA electronic bulletin;
• Launch a new era of state and local partnerships by working with state SBEAPs and small
business trade associations to improve the environmental performance of small businesses.
ASBO will continue monitoring its grant issued to the State of Kansas to establish a website
which serves as an essential conduit of both communication and education for state small
business environmental assistance programs and the small business community;
• Serve as the agency's point of contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act40 by
coordinating efforts with the agency's program offices to further reduce the information
collection burden for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees;
40 For more information: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaiilt/files/onib/assets/omb/in.foreg/sbpra-hr327.pdf.
184
-------
• Assist in carrying out the EPA's implementation of the RFA, including Small Business
Advocacy Panels for regulations that might have a significant and potentially adverse
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
• Support the EPA's efforts to limit potential adverse impacts on small entities by assisting
program offices in characterizing the possible impacts of its regulations and considering
alternative requirements.
• Develop a transparent and collaborative process for conducting the important small business
training and technical assistance required under Section 15(k) of the Small Business Act.
The One EPA process will utilize the EPA's existing collaborative tools to plan and conduct
more strategically targeted training and technical assistance that effectively leverage
resources to expand the agency's small business supplier pipeline.
• Streamline and increase effectiveness in tracking, analyzing and reporting the agency's
small business contracting to strengthen data-driven decision making and compliance with
the statutory government-wide small business goal program.
• Simplify the rules and procedures governing the DBE program to clarify program
eligibility, compliance and reporting requirements and reduce the administrative burden on
grant recipients. The changes will enhance DBE opportunities to compete for contracts
funded under EPA assistance agreements.
• Provide DBE training and technical assistance on new program regulations and procedures.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$30.0 / -0.3 FTE) With a limited change in resources, the agency is able to ensure
compliance with its statutory obligations under the Small Business Act. This funding
change also incorporates the statutory functions of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization into this program.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Clean Air Act; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat.
2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.); 15 U.S.C § 644(k); 42
U.S.C. § 4370d and 7601 note).
185
-------
Small Minority Business Assistance
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
Sl.-lfi-I.O
S l.fift'.o
so.o
(S1.(>(>'.!))
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI .464.0
SI .667.0
so.o
(SI .667.0)
Total Workyears
8.8
8.9
0.0
-8.9
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) manages the
agency's Small Business Contracting and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs.
The Small Business Contracting program is mandated under Section 15(k) of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 644(k). The program provides expertise in expanding small business prime and
subcontracting opportunities. The program offers counselling to the EPA contracting community
on all aspects of the acquisition cycle. It also provides a range of advocacy, outreach and technical
assistance to the various categories of small businesses, including, disadvantaged and women-
owned small businesses; businesses located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones
(HUBZone); and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).
The DBE program provides national outreach, education and assistance to increase the utilization
of businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in
procurements funded under EPA financial assistance agreements. Under the DBE program,
OSDBU issues the governing program eligibility and compliance requirements.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Funding and FTE for this program will be eliminated in FY 2018. The agency will integrate its
resources for Small and Disadvantaged Business activities under the Small Business Ombudsman
program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,667.0 / -8.9 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Small Minority Business
Assistance program as part of the effort to streamline functions that can be absorbed into
other programs. Key portions of this program's activities will be shifted to the Small
Business Ombudsman program.
Statutory Authority:
15 U.S.C § 644(k); 42 U.S.C. § 4370d; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549
(codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7601 note).
186
-------
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
SI 5,0-1-1.1
S l.\2SV.O
s nun l.i)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$15,044.1
$15,289.0
$10,011.0
($5,278.0;
Total Workyears
67.9
74.2
46.9
-27.3
Program Project Description:
The State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program establishes a structure composed of
federal, state, local, and Tribal partners who work together with industry to protect emergency
responders, local communities, and property from chemical risks through advanced technologies,
community and facility engagement, and improved safety systems. This regulatory framework
provides the foundation for community emergency responders, facility hazard response planning,
and reduction of risk posed from chemical facilities.
Under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, chemical facilities that store a certain amount of
extremely hazardous substances are required to implement a Risk Management Plan program.
These facilities, known as Risk Management Plan (RMP) facilities, take preventive measures,
report data, mitigate and/or respond to chemical releases, and work with communities, response,
and planning groups to increase understanding of risks.41
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program will perform the following
activities:
• Inspect RMP facilities to ensure compliance with accident prevention and preparedness
activities. There are approximately 12,500 chemical facilities that are subject to inspections
in the RMP program. Of these, approximately 1,900 facilities have been designated as high-
risk based upon their accident history, quantity of on-site dangerous chemicals stored, and
proximity to large residential populations.
• Provide one basic RMP inspector training for federal and state inspectors as statutorily
required.
• Maintain the national Central Data Exchange (CDX) RMP reporting center database, which
is the nation's premier source of information on chemical process risks and contains hazard
information on all RMP facilities. Industry electronically submits their updated RMPs to
this secure database.
41 For additional information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/niip.
187
-------
• Develop limited updates to the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO) software suite, i.e., the CAMEO Chemicals app, which will provide free and
publically available information for firefighting, first aid, and spill response activities.
• Conduct reconsideration of RMP rule as a result of three petitions for reconsideration
requested under the Clean Air Act. Reconsideration may result in further amendments to
the final rule.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,278.0 / -27.3 FTE) Funding and FTE for technical support and outreach, as well as
grant support for certified RMP inspectors, will be eliminated in FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); the Clean Air Act (CAA),
as amended by the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, §
112(r).
188
-------
TRI / Right to Know
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S I.1.292.-I
SI.\S5f>.0
ss.osn.n
(S ,\/
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,292.4
$13,856.0
$8,680.0
($5,176.0;
Total Workyears
35.6
43.5
28.4
-15.1
Program Project Description:
The EPA's success in carrying out its mission to protect human health and the environment is
contingent on collecting timely, high-quality, and relevant information. The Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) program42 supports the EPA's mission by annually publishing, for the public,
release and other waste management (e.g., recycling) and pollution prevention data on over 650
toxic chemicals from approximately 20,000 industrial and federal facilities. The TRI Program is a
premiere source of toxic chemical release data for communities, non-governmental organizations,
industrial facilities, academia, and government agencies.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will focus on the collection of the chemical release data and making the data
available to governments and the public. The TRI program, working with the EPA's Environmental
Information program, will continue to provide reporting facilities with an online reporting
application, TRI-MEweb, to facilitate the electronic preparation and submission of TRI reports
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). CDX manages access and authentication
services for most EPA reporting systems, including the TRI. In particular, it provides a third-party
authentication for reporting facilities using LexisNexis. In addition, TRI data collected by the EPA
are shared with states who have an active node on CDX and are partners of the TRI Data Exchange
(TDX). Facilities located in states that participate in this exchange submit reports to the EPA
through CDX. The data are then downloaded by the states or transferred to their nodes using TDX.
The EPA will continue to maintain the TDX used by states, tribes, and territories.
In FY 2018, the TRI program will continue to conduct approximately 600 data quality checks to
help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the reported data. The TRI program will continue to
publish the annual TRI National Analysis, including describing relevant trends in toxic chemical
releases and other waste management and innovative approaches by industry to reduce pollution.
Operations and maintenance will be reduced to meet statutory requirements for industry reporting
and public access to TRI data.
As required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the agency
will respond to EPCRA petitions regarding TRI within 180 days after receipt. Petitions may request
42 Please see: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
189
-------
to add or delete chemicals or industry sectors on the TRI. The quantity and complexity of petitions
are unknown until submitted to the agency.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,015.0 / -13.1 FTE) This eliminates funding for the TRINational Training Conference,
TRI University Challenge, TRI Information Center, TRI Tools, and other TRI
communication initiatives.
• (-$2,161.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reduces contractual resources for system data entry
enhancements, quality control support, and training and help desk services. Operations and
maintenance will be reduced to meet statutory requirements for industry reporting and
public access to TRI data.
Statutory Authority:
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), § 313; Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 (PPA), § 6607.
190
-------
Tribal - Capacity Building
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S
SNJ5HM
SI/.-?/.«
(S 2.<>2~.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$14,056.3
$14,358.0
$11,731.0
($2,627.0;
Total Workyears
87.0
87.9
72.0
-15.9
Program Project Description:
Under federal environmental statutes, the EPA has responsibility for protecting human health and
the environment in Indian country. Under the EPA's 1984 Indian Policy,43 the agency works with
federally recognized tribes (tribes) on a government-to-government basis in recognition of the
federal government's trust responsibility to tribes to implement federal environmental programs. In
the 1984 Indian Policy, the "EPA recognizes tribes as the primary parties for setting standards,
making environmental policy decisions, and managing programs for reservations consistent with
agency standards and regulations" and therefore, the EPA assists tribes in developing the program
to make such decisions. In the absence of a program delegation to a tribe, the EPA directly
implements the program.
The EPA's American Indian Environmental program leads the agency-wide efforts to ensure
environmental protection in Indian country. Please see http://www.epa.gov/tribal for more
information.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Overall, the agency has made steady progress towards strengthening human health and
environmental protection on Tribal lands. However, the agency will further its priority of
strengthening Tribal partnerships and continue to work toward its goal of building Tribal Capacity
through a number of mechanisms in FY 2018.
Capacity Building: The EPA will provide technical assistance to encourage the development of
Tribal capacity to implement federal environmental programs through several means, primarily the
"treatment in a manner similar to a state" (TAS) process as well as the use of the Direct
Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) authority. To date, the EPA has approved
110 TAS program delegations to tribes, including 12 with compliance and enforcement authority.
The EPA also has awarded 48 DITCAs.
During FY 2018, the agency continues its targeted technical assistance and support in response to
requests from Tribal governments to help them build capacity to acquire TAS status for
43 EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations available at
http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/pdf/in.dian-policv-84.pdf.
191
-------
environmental programs. The agency is continuing the process of reviewing and revising how it
measures progress tribes have made in developing and implementing environmental protection
programs in Indian country. This effort builds on the 2013 Indian General Assistance Program
(GAP) Guidance44 designed to improve Tribal capacity development milestones. In FY 2018, the
EPA will continue to work toward the development of an improved set of performance measures
to assess and report on Tribal environmental program capacity. The EPA continues the direct
implementation assessment effort to better understand the EPA's direct implementation
responsibilities and activities on a program-by-program basis in Indian country.
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) Capacity Building Support: GAP
grants to Tribal governments help build the basic components of a Tribal environmental program.
The agency manages GAP grants according to its "Guidance on the Award and Management of
General Assistance Agreements for Tribes and Intertribal Consortia. "45 In FY 2018, the EPA will
continue to implement this Guidance to build Tribal capacity to address environmental issues in
Indian country. The EPA's work in FY 2018 also will continue to enhance the EPA-Tribal
partnerships supported by the framework for joint strategic planning set forth in the 2013 Guidance.
GAP Online: In addition to the improved measurement scheme noted above, the EPA will continue
to use GAP Online, an internet-based database that assists tribes and the EPA in developing,
reviewing, and archiving GAP work plans and progress reports. The EPA and tribes use the
database to negotiate and track progress with individual grantees. GAP Online creates an easily
accessible record to help mitigate challenges associated with relatively high rates of staff turnover
in many Tribal environmental departments.
Tribal Consultation: In working with the tribes, the EPA follows its "Policy on Consultation and
Coordination Policy with Indian Tribes.46 The Consultation Policy builds on the EPA's 1984 Indian
Policy and establishes clear agency standards for a consultation process promoting consistency and
coordination. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to support the agency's web-based Tribal
Consultation Opportunities Tracking System (TCOTS); a publically accessible database used to
communicate upcoming and current EPA consultation opportunities to Tribal governments. The
system provides a management, oversight, and reporting structure that helps ensure accountability
and transparency. Over the past four years, the EPA has provided 372 Tribal consultation
opportunities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,627.0 / -15.9 FTE) This reduces some Tribal capacity building efforts and eliminates
grants to Tribal colleges and universities; certain Tribal small-grant programs; contract
support for assessing the EPA's direct implementation responsibilities in Indian country;
and contract and staff support to the National Tribal Operations Committee.
44 Please refer to http://www.epa.gov/tribalpoital/GAP-guidaiice-fin.al.pdf for further information.
45 https://www.epa.gov/tribal/2013-giiidance-award-aiid-maiiagement-general-assistaiice-agreements-tribes-and-iiitertribal
46 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/pdf/cons-and-coord-wlth-indian-tribes-policv.pdf for further information.
192
-------
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriation Acts; Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act; PPA; FIFRA;
CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SDWA; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; MPRSA; Indoor Radon
Abatement Act; OP A; and additional authorities.
Work within this Tribal Capacity Building Program supports the above authorities, as well as
additional statutory authorities that influence environmental protection and affect human health and
environmental protection in Indian country.
193
-------
Program Area: International Programs
194
-------
US Mexico Border
Program Area: International Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
s "
$.3,057.0
S 0.0
(SJ.05 ~.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$2,913.7
$3,057.0
$0.0
($3,057.0;
Total Workyears
14.0
14.7
0.0
-14.7
Program Project Description:
The two thousand-mile border between the United States and Mexico is one of the most complex
and dynamic regions in the world, where the benefits of the EPA's international programs are
perhaps most apparent. This region accounts for three of the ten poorest counties in the U.S., with
an unemployment rate 250-300 percent higher than the rest of the United States.47 In addition, over
430 thousand of the 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias,48 which are
unincorporated communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water. The
1983 La Paz Agreement49 and the adoption of the Border Programs have gone a long way to protect
and improve the health and environmental conditions along a border that extends from the Gulf of
Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
The Border 2020 program identifies five long-term strategic goals to address the serious
environmental and environmentally-related public health challenges, including the impact of
transboundary transport of pollutants in the border region. These goals include: reducing air
pollution; improving access to clean and safe water; promoting materials management; waste
management; and clean sites; enhancing joint preparedness for environmental response; and
enhancing compliance assurance and environmental stewardship.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The budget recognizes
that state and local governments, such as communities along the border, can continue to advance
environmental and health programs with a local emphasis.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,057.0 / -14.7 FTE) This funding change eliminates the U.S. Mexico Border Program
as part of the effort to limit federal investment in lower priority activities and to focus
resources on core environmental work under core statutes.
47 http://hsc.iimii.edu/coiiiiiiiin.itv/toolldt/docs2/10.USMBHC-TheIjorderAtAGlan.ce.pdf
48 http://hsc.imm.edii/commiinitv/toolkit/docs2/10.USMBHC-TheBorderAtAGlance.pdf
49 https://www.epa.gov/sites/prodiiction/files/2015-09/dociiments/lapazaEreement.pdf
195
-------
Statutory Authority:
In conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), § 102(2)(F); Clean Air Act, §
103(a); Clean Water Act, § 104(a)(l)-(2); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§ 1442(a)(1),
8001(a)(1); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), §§ 17(d), 20(a); Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 10(a); Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), § 203(a)(1).
196
-------
International Sources of Pollution
Program Area: International Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S6J45.0
S(t.4!H.O
S 4.051.0
(S2.M> ~.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$6,345.0
$6,418.0
$4,051.0
($2,367.0;
Total Workyears
35.6
38.2
14.2
-24.0
Program Project Description:
To achieve our domestic environmental and human health objectives, the U.S. works with
international partners to address international sources of pollution, as well as the impacts of
pollution from the U.S. on other countries and the global environment. Pollution impacts air, water,
food crops and food chains, and can accumulate in foods such as fish. Achieving healthy
environments, ecosystems, and communities provides the foundation for economic development,
food security, and sustainable growth.
The EPA's work with international organizations is essential to successfully addressing
transboundary pollution adversely impacting the U.S. Strengthening environmental protection
abroad so that it is on par with practices in the United States helps build a level playing field for
industry supporting the foreign policy objectives outlined by the White House, the National
Security Council, and the Department of State.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to engage both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions
to improve international cooperation to prevent and address the transboundary movement of
pollution. Specifically, the EPA will engage with key priority countries like China to address air
pollution that contributes significant pollution to the domestic and international environment. For
example, China is implementing national air quality monitoring, planning, and control strategies
with advice and lessons learned from the United States. Environmental policies adopted and
implemented in China will improve competitiveness for U.S. businesses, drive demand for U.S.
emissions control technologies, and expand exports of U.S. environmental goods and services to
China.
The EPA will maintain efforts to reduce environmental threats to U.S. citizens from global
contaminants impacting air, water, and food safety. In particular, the EPA will continue technical
and policy assistance for global and regional efforts to address international sources of harmful
pollutants, such as mercury. Because 70 percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from
global sources,5" both domestic efforts and international cooperation are important to address
mercury pollution. For example, the EPA will continue to work with international partners and key
50 http://www.epa.gov/mtemational/toxics/mercury/mtiegotiations.htmk www.merciirvconvention.org:
197
-------
countries to fully implement obligations under the Minamata Convention on Mercury in order to
protect the U.S. population from mercury emissions originating in other countries. The EPA will
maintain a reduced contribution to the North American Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC) which provides regional and international leadership to advance environmental
protection, human health, and sustainable economic growth.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,367.0 / -24.0 FTE) This reflects a refocus of efforts on highest priority international
issues.
• (+$1,000.0) This provides funding to support the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC), previously located in the Trade and Governance program, which
provides regional and international leadership to advance environmental protection, human
health, and sustainable economic growth.
Statutory Authority:
In conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), § 102(2)(F); Clean Air Act, §
103(a); Clean Water Act, § 104(a)(l)-(2); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§ 1442(a)(1),
8001(a)(1); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), §§ 17(d), 20(a); Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 10(a); Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), § 203(a)(1); E.O. 13547; E.O. 13689.
198
-------
Trade and Governance
Program Area: International Programs
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
srj
S.\,SW,.0
so.o
(S xliV/iM)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S6;2.?l..?
S5.896.0
so.o
(S5.896.0)
Total Workyears
18.6
18.0
0.0
-18.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA is a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review
Group (TPRG) - interagency mechanisms that provide advice, guidance, and clearance to the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in the development of U.S. international trade and
investment policy. The EPA's role in trade negotiations is to ensure that agreements have strong
environmental provisions.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The U.S. Trade
Representative's Office and the Department of State lead trade negotiations and related capacity
building and can continue this work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,896.0 / -18.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Trade and Governance program.
Statutory Authority:
In conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), § 102(2)(F); Clean Air Act, §
103(a); Clean Water Act, § 104(a)(1) -(2); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §§ 1442(a)(1),
8001(a)(1); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), §§ 17(d), 20(a); Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 10(a); Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), § 203(a)(1); E.O. 12915; E.O. 13141; E.O. 13277, as amended by E.O. 13346.
199
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
200
-------
Information Security
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S2~. I52.fi
S2H.JJ2M
N n.vv.n
(S 16.13x0)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$(>,008.0
$6,071.0
$3,186.0
($2,885.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$33,160.6
$34,203.0
$15,183.0
($19,020.0)
Total Workyears
12.8
14.3
12.8
-1.5
Program Project Description:
Information is a valuable national resource and a strategic asset to the EPA. It enables the agency
to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. The agency's Information
Security program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of the EPA's
information assets. The information protection strategy includes, but is not limited to:
• Policy, procedure and practice management;
• Information security awareness, training and education; risk-based governance and
oversight;
• Weakness remediation;
• Operational security management;
• Incident response and handling; and
• Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) compliance and reporting.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Cybersecurity is a serious challenge to our nation's security and economic prosperity. The EPA
will maintain continuous monitoring of security controls in FY 2018. Effective information security
requires vigilance and the ability to adapt to new challenges every day. The EPA will continue to
manage information security risk and build upon efforts to protect, defend and sustain its
information assets through continued improvements to training and incident response.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to sustain multi-year improvements by establishing foundational
capabilities and closing gaps in the security architecture. The EPA will close existing gaps by
building strong authentication improvements to quickly isolate and remediate suspected or known
compromised systems. These areas are cornerstone capabilities in protecting against, responding
to, and mitigating risk sources. Also for FY 2018, EPA plans to include capabilities for detecting
and protecting against attacks and capturing and integrating threat intelligence sources. In addition
to the continued improvements, the agency will need to sustain the tools and processes implemented
to date. The security architecture, associated processes and expert personnel comprise an ecosystem
with cross dependencies, and the system is strongest when operating as a whole. Neglecting to
implement the entire range of efforts makes protections less operational and cost effective.
201
-------
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue building on progress previously made to automate and advance
the information security program by:
• Increasing the use of continuous monitoring tools and processes through the Continuous
Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program; and
• Refining incident management capabilities.
The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program, centrally managed by the Department
of Homeland Security, provides tools that will give near real-time awareness of EPA's networks
and environments. CDM consists of four implementation phases when fully implemented. Data
from the individual agency dashboards across the federal government will be aggregated into one
federal-level dashboard maintained by the CDM program, which allows DHS to monitor and
respond to federal cybersecurity threats and incidents much more quickly and efficiently. The
operations and support costs of EPA's CDM Phase 1 tools and services will be partially funded by
DHS at $736 thousand in FY 2018. The agency will continue to work with DHS to implement
future phases based on capacity.
The Information Security program also will continue to detect and remediate the effects of
Advanced Persistent Threats to the agency's information and information systems. The agency will
continue to focus on training and user-awareness to foster desired behavior, asset definition and
management, compliance, incident management, knowledge and information management, risk
management and technology management. These efforts will strengthen the agency's ability to
adequately protect information assets. The final result will be an information security program that
can rely on effective and efficient controls and processes to counter cybersecurity threats.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue Phase II of the implementation of the Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requirements for logical and physical access as identified in
the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of
Federal Employees and Contractors,51 This effort ensures only authorized employees have access
to federal and federal-controlled facilities and information systems by requiring a higher level of
identity assurance.
The EPA will improve its capabilities at the internal Computer Security Incident Response
Capability (CSIRC) to support identification, response, alerting and reporting of suspicious
activity. CSIRC's mission is to protect the EPA's information assets and respond to security
incidents - actual and potential. This includes detecting unauthorized attempts to access, destroy,
or alter the EPA's data and information resources. CSIRC will maintain relationships with other
federal agencies and law enforcement entities to support the agency's mission. The incident
response capability includes components such as detection and analysis; forensics; and containment
and eradication activities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
202
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$16,135.0/ -1.5 FTE) This reduces the startup cybersecurity related improvement
activities funded in FY 2016. The agency also will prioritize further improvements in the
following areas: access controls for accounts that present the greatest risk; capabilities to
identify and prevent inappropriate access or transmission, downloading, or use of sensitive
information; and ease of regular user login process. Efforts to research and evaluate
emerging technologies that enhance the agency's cybersecurity core functions will be
deferred.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA); Cybersecurity Act of 2015;
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); Government Management Reform Act
(GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA); Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); the Privacy Act of 1974;
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
203
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
ssj.ssj.:
SS.\ ''>0.0
S 'O.Ofi'KO
(SL\ '21.0)
Science & Technology
$2,892.6
$3,083.0
$2,725.0
($358.0;
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$14,968.1
$13,776.0
$8,213.0
($5,563.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$101,743.9
$100,649.0
$81,007.0
($19,642.0)
Total Workyears
441.5
478.8
451.1
-27.7
Program Project Description:
The work performed under the Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) program
supports human health and environmental protection by providing critical IT infrastructure and data
management needed for:
1) Access to scientific, regulatory, policy and guidance information needed by the agency, the
regulated community and the public;
2) Analytical support for interpreting and understanding environmental information;
3) Exchange and storage of data, analysis and computation; and
4) Rapid, secure and efficient communication.
These areas are then organized into the following functional areas: information analysis and access;
data management and collection; information technology and infrastructure; and geospatial
information and analysis.
This program supports the maintenance of the EPA's IT and Information Management (IT/IM)
services that enable citizens, regulated facilities, states and other entities to interact with the EPA
electronically to get the information they need on demand, to understand what it means, and to
submit and share environmental data with the least cost and burden. The program also provides
support to other agency IT development projects and essential technology to agency staff, enabling
them to conduct their work effectively and efficiently.
With the introduction of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA),
the EPA continues to revise its IT budgeting, acquisition, portfolio review, and governance
processes to adopt practices that improve delivery of capability to users, drive down lifecycle costs,
and ensure proper leveraging of shared services. The EPA's FITARA implementation plan52 meets
federal guidance and seeks to leverage existing processes to improve efficiency.
52 Please see: Me ://www.epa.gov/opeii/digital-strategy.
204
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA has progressively integrated new and transformative approaches to the way IT is managed
across the agency. The goal of the EPA's IT/DM services is to enhance the power of information
by delivering on demand data to the right people at the right time. In FY 2018, the program will
strive to meet EPA's IT/IM service need while continuously improving customer experiences to
allow EPA, its partners and the public to acquire, generate, manage, use and share information as
a critical resource to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish this, the program
will focus available capacity on the following areas:
• Improve the way EPA supports and manages the lifecycle of information;
• Modernize EPA's IT/IM infrastructure, applications and services;
• Empower a mobile workforce using innovative and agile solutions;
• Empower state and Tribal partnerships using innovative and agile solutions; and
• Align IT/IM resources with EPA's core program priorities.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement the E-Enterprise business strategy, a
transformative 21st century strategy - jointly governed by states, tribes, and the EPA - for
modernizing government agencies' delivery of services to support the protection of human health
and the environment. Utilizing E-Enterprise, the agency will continue to streamline its business
processes and systems to reduce the reporting burden on states, tribes, and regulated facilities, while
also improving the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory programs for the EPA, states and
tribes. IT/DM activities will continue to facilitate limited shared services and electronic transactions
with the regulated community and external partners who routinely conduct environmental business
with the EPA. E-Enterprise provides a structured strategy for continuing to modernize the EPA's
publicly facing systems, foundational shared infrastructure and services will continue to be
essential.
The FY 2018 budget includes funding to continue to support a Digital Services team that will
provide the system design expertise needed for transforming the agency's digital services to make
them easier for the public to use and more cost-effective for the agency to build and maintain. The
Digital Service team is a key element of the EPA's FITARA Implementation Plan. In accordance
with the government wide Digital Services initiative, the EPA's digital experts will work with a
limited number of agency projects to support externally facing technology solutions and improve
the EPA's existing technology infrastructure. The EPA Digital Service team will continue to
simplify the digital experience that people and businesses have with their government.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement its IT acquisition review process as part of the
implementation of federal Common Baseline Controls for FITARA. The EPA's FITARA
implementation plan increases the engagement of the agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO) in
the budget process to ensure that IT needs are properly planned and resourced. In addition, FITARA
controls include an established solid communication and engagement strategy for the CIO with the
agency's programs and Regional Offices to ensure that their IT plans are well designed, directly
drive agency strategic objectives, and follow best practices. Lastly, the controls ensure the CIO
engages closely with key IT decision-makers across the EPA and fosters plans to refresh IT skills
within the agency.
205
-------
In FY 2018, the following IT/DM activities will continue:
• Data Management and Collection: Data Management and Collection efforts include
support for the agency's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA responses will be
prioritized to align with available resources. Additionally, the agency enhancements of e-
Discovery technology will continue on an adjusted schedule to help meet the significant
increase of requests from external stakeholders. The EPA continues to operate a shared
service docket processing center, called E-Rulemaking, which supporting the agency's
rulemakings and administering the Paperwork Reduction Act, minimizing information
collection burden on the public.
• Geospatial: In addition to meeting ongoing program needs, Geospatial information and
analysis play a critical role in the agency's ability to respond rapidly and effectively in times
of emergency. In FY 2018, the agency will continue to support the essential capabilities of
GeoPlatform, a shared technology enterprise for geospatial information and analysis. By
implementing geospatial data, applications and services, the agency is able to integrate and
interpret multiple data sets and information sources to support environmental decisions.
Specifically, during FY 2018, the agency will focus on Geoplatform data services,
dashboards, and story boards based on provided geographic information to support
programmatic analysis and decision making. It also will better inform the public about the
EPA's use of grant funding to protect the environment and public health. In FY 2018, the
EPA also will continue to use the Geoplatform to publish internal and public mapping tools
and make available a number of shareable maps, geodata services, and applications. The
EPA will continue to play a leadership role in both the Federal Geographic Data Committee
and the National Geospatial Platform, working with partner agencies to share geospatial
technology capabilities across government.
• Information Access and Analysis: In FY 2018, the EPA will focus on providing core
support to agency infrastructure and utilizing tools that will harness the power of data across
the agency to drive better environmental results. The EPA Digital Analytics Platform
(EDAP) will replace much of the data management functionality in the legacy EnviroFacts
data warehouse, which is at capacity, expensive to operate, and built on relational database
technologies that do not enable users to meet many of their needs. Using powerful cloud-
based infrastructure, and by utilizing existing facility and substance registries, the EDAP
will facilitate the integration, enhancement and consistent access of environmental data
collected from across EPA programs.
In addition, the program will be closely aligned with the E-Enterprise business strategy and
digital services team to provide support throughout the data lifecycle from data
identification and collection through internal and external data presentation (Digital
Services). The program will continue to provide analysis of environmental information to
the public and the EPA's staff through My Environment, EnviroFacts, OneEPA Web, EPA
National Library Network and the EPA Intranet. The program will continue to ensure
compliance of the EPA's public systems with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
206
-------
• Information Technology and Infrastructure: In FY 2018, the agency will continue to
maintain essential information technology and infrastructure. The agency will adjust the
schedule for replacement or upgrades to keep up with technology advancement and to align
with capacity. The EPA will continue to maintain and provision: desktop computing
equipment, network connectivity, e-mail and collaboration tools, application hosting,
remote access, telephone services, Web and network services, and other IT-related
equipment. In FY 2018, the agency will continue efforts to consolidate the EPA's data
centers and computer rooms and to optimize operations within the EPA's remaining data
centers. The EPA is committed to using cloud computing technologies and will have an
enterprise-wide cloud hosting service in place in FY 2018.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,711.0/ -29.3 FTE) This resource and FTE change is a net reduction to enterprise IT
systems/tools, emergency response, and agency-wide services including: shared services
for Facility Registries, National Environment Policy Act Assist, Geographic Information
System platform support for emergency response, and reduced support for regional
libraries.
• (-$4,071.0/ -15.5 FTE) This funding change modifies the timeline for development of new
technologies to address agency needs such as new assistive technology tools, ability to re-
platform legacy applications, and replace end of service IT equipment that provides basic
workforce support across the agency.
• (+$61.0) This increases the EPA's contribution to E-Rulemaking line of business as
required by the cost allocation methodology governed by this line of business's board.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act
(CWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA);
Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA); Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA); Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
207
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
208
-------
Administrative Law
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S-I.'JS-I.O
S4,
S 4J4l.it
(S024.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S4.984.0
S4.765.0
S4.141.0
(S624.0)
Total Workyears
28.2
25.8
23.8
-2.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the EPA's Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB). The ALJ preside in hearings and issue initial decisions in cases initiated by
the EPA's enforcement program concerning environmental, civil rights, and government program
fraud related violations. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
guarantees the regulated community the right to due process of the law. The ALJ issues orders and
decisions under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the various
environmental, civil rights, and anti-fraud statutes that establish administrative enforcement
authority and implement the Constitution's guarantee of due process.
By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJ and the EAB further the agency's mission to promote
and protect a strong and healthy environment. The ALJ provides the constitutionally guaranteed
legal process and review for hearings and issues initial decisions in cases brought by the agency's
enforcement program against those accused of violations under various environmental, civil rights,
and anti-fraud statutes. The right of affected persons to appeal those decisions is conferred by
various statutes, regulations, and constitutional due process rights. The ALJ also offers an
opportunity for alternative dispute resolution.
The EAB is a four-member appellate tribunal established by regulation in 1992 to hear appeals and
issue final decisions in environmental adjudications (primarily enforcement and permit-related)
under all major environmental statues that the EPA administers. The EAB decides petitions for
reimbursement under CERCLA 106(b), hears appeals of pesticide licensing and cancellation
proceedings under FIFRA, and serves as the final approving body for proposed settlements of
enforcement actions initiated at the EPA headquarters. The EAB issues decisions consistent with
the APA and under the authority delegated by the Administrator and pursuant to regulation.
The EAB adjudicates administrative appeals in a fair and timely manner in accord with the APA,
ensuring consistency in the application of legal requirements. The EAB also resolves disputes
efficiently, avoiding protracted federal court review. In over ninety percent of matters decided by
the EAB, no further appeal is taken to federal court, providing a final resolution to the dispute.
209
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the ALJ will convene formal hearings in the location of the alleged violator or
violation, as required by statute. In FY 2017, the ALJ completed the business process map of its
electronic filing and case management system, identifying the potential for reductions in: mailing
delays for all parties, mailing costs for ALJ and alleged violators, and requests for paper documents
from the ALJ in a modernized system. The schedule for modernizing the system will be adjusted
in FY 2018 and review of alternatives to system replacement will proceed. In FY 2018, the EAB
will continue to implement its streamlined procedures for adjudicating permit appeals under all
statutes, and will continue to expedite appeals in Clean Air Act New Source Review cases and in
FIFRA licensing proceedings.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$624.0 / -2.0 FTE) This change is a reduction of funds for managing an electronic filing
and case docketing system and for travel.
Statutory Authority:
Administrative Procedure Act (APA); Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as
amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute);
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Clean Water Act (CWA); Clean Air Act
(CAA); Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA); Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act (MCRBMA); the Act
to Prevent Pollution From Ships (APPS).
210
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SI.-1-12.1
S 1.04X0
S 0.0
(S 1.04X0)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$486.5
$(>74.0
$0.0
($674.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$1,928.6
$1,717.0
$0.0
($1,717.0)
Total Workyears
6.8
6.7
0.0
-6.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) services and workplace conflict prevention. The EPA utilizes ADR as
a method for preventing or resolving conflicts prior to engaging in formal litigation. ADR includes
the provision of legal counsel, facilitation, mediation and consensus building advice and support.
This program oversees a strategically-sourced contract for these services that that provides
mediation, facilitation, public involvement, training, and organizational development support to all
headquarters and regional programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,043.0 / -5.3 FTE) This eliminates the centralization of conflict prevention and ADR
program. Programs across the agency may pursue ADR support services and training
individually.
Statutory Authority:
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996; Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 111,
117, 122; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute).
211
-------
Civil Rights Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
SI 1.2 If,.'
SI 0.052.0
SS.2M.0
(SI.
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$11,216.7
$10,052.0
$8,266.0
($1,786.0;
Total Workyears
57.5
64.0
48.3
-15.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Civil Rights program enforces federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by
external recipients of EPA funds. It also enforces civil rights laws that promote equal employment
opportunity and protect employees and applicants for employment from discrimination. In addition,
the program provides policy guidance and technical assistance on civil rights compliance and equal
employment opportunity and is responsible for carrying out the following functions:
• External Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI) functions include the enforcement of several
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
disability, sex, and age, in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance
from the EPA. The EPA investigates and resolves external complaints, develops policy,
conducts compliance reviews, provides technical assistance to recipients, and conducts
outreach to communities and other stakeholders.
• Employment Complaints Resolution (Title VII) functions address complaints of
employment discrimination, including those filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, alleging discrimination based on race; color; religion; sex, including pregnancy, sex
stereotyping, gender identity or gender expression; national origin; sexual orientation;
physical or mental disability; age; protected genetic information; status as a parent marital
status; political affiliation; or retaliation based on previous Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) activity, against federal EPA employees and applicants for federal EPA employment.
• Affirmative Employment Analysis and Accountability (AEAA) functions provide
leadership, direction, and advice to managers and supervisors to assist them in carrying out
equal opportunity and civil rights responsibilities. In addition, the Civil Rights program
oversees the EPA's continuing affirmative activities to promote equal employment
opportunity. The program also is responsible for reporting under the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's Management Directive 715 (MD-715),53 which provides
guidelines for identifying triggers and conducting barrier analysis within the EPA's
workforce.
53 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715, October 1, 2013.
212
-------
• Reasonable Accommodation functions carry out the EPA's responsibilities under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires the agency to provide reasonable
accommodation for individuals with disabilities, unless it would cause undue hardship for
the agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Civil Rights program is developing strategic plans for each of the programs, including specific
goals, implementation steps, and benchmarks that will serve as internal performance measures to
ensure accountability for all of the functions. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue the strategic
planning process with an emphasis on process improvement, internal performance measures,
technology resources, and strategic human capital planning. These actions are consistent with
measures called for in the EPA Report "Developing a Model Civil Rights Program at the EPA."54
External Civil Rights, Including Title VI
In FY 2018 the program will implement the External Compliance Program Strategic Plan for FY
2015-2020 and will support complaint docket management. The program will prioritize compliance
reviews, strategic policy development, engagement of partners and stakeholders (e.g., recipients
and communities), and the program's workforce planning and training.
Title VII
In FY 2018, the program will focus on process improvements to: 1) ensure prompt, effective, and
efficient EEO complaint docket management; 2) enhance the proactive EEO compliance program
through strategic policy and training development, and the engagement of critical internal EPA
partners and stakeholders; and 3) strengthen the Title VII workforce through strategic human
capital planning, training, and the use of organizational development and technology resources to
promote a forward looking organization. In addition, the program will:
• Train additional collateral-duty EEO Counselors providing them with at least 32 hours of
mediation training. This goal will be accomplished by training the available workforce.
• Identify methods to further reduce, by an additional 10 percent from the prior year's
performance, the number of days that complaints are under investigation to less than the
regulatory 180 days.
• Enhance the consistency of process-related practices and improve efficiency and
effectiveness of the EEO process by identifying and revising EEO complaint and other
agency forms.
• Implement the "EEO Settlement Process Standard Operating Procedures" and provide
additional related training.
54 For more information: http://mtranet.epa.g0v/civilrights/pdfs/trainin.g/ecfr-developin.g-a-n10del-civil-rights-program.pdf.
213
-------
Affirmative Employment Analysis and Accountability (AEAA)
In FY 2018, the program will focus on process improvement to: 1) ensure prompt, effective, and
efficient development of critical and required reports, such as MD-715; 2) enhance the proactive
Affirmative Employment function through development of strategic policy, and, training and the
engagement of critical internal EPA partners and stakeholders; and 3) strengthen the AEAA
workforce through strategic human capital planning, training, and the use of organizational
development and technology resources to promote a forward looking organization. Consistent with
this strategic approach, the program will:
• Heighten collaboration among program offices to ensure coordination of related EEO and
diversity and inclusion missions.
• Ensure integration of civil rights into the EPA's strategic planning processes, organizational
assessments, operating plans, and other relevant reporting vehicles.
• Ensure implementation of training on Transgender Policies and Procedures.
• Develop and implement activities, trainings, and events that assist the EPA's programs in
meeting shared goals, missions, and objectives.
• Develop a process for conducting periodic surveys/focus groups in collaboration with EPA
partners and through the Equal Employment Opportunity Officers, Program Management
Officers, and Deputy Civil Rights Officials to collect information on best practices to ensure
effective affirmative employment programs.
• Provide effective support tools for managers and supervisors in carrying out their
responsibilities under MD-715 and the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.
• Develop a Special Emphasis Programs best practices toolkit.
• Develop and implement a critical activities and document management system for AEAA.
Reasonable Accommodations (RA) Program
In FY 2018, the RA program will focus on process and technology improvements to: ensure
prompt, effective, and efficient RA complaint docket management. The program also will enhance
the proactive RA compliance function through development of strategic policy and training and the
engagement of critical internal EPA partners and stakeholders, and 3) strengthen the RA program's
workforce through strategic human capital planning, training, and the use of organizational
development and technology resources to promote a forward looking organization. The program
will:
• Continue to update and enhance the comprehensive, user-friendly electronic case, activity,
and document management system.
• Update reasonable accommodation templates to improve the timeliness, efficiency, and
consistency of communications.
• Continue to assess, evaluate, and further develop the on-line training curriculum for
reasonable accommodation and Section 508 compliance.
In FY 2018, the EPA will reprioritize its resources for the equal employment opportunity programs
by dedicating most of its financial resources to the processing of discrimination complaints,
including EEO counseling, investigations, and drafting final agency decisions.
214
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,786.0 / -15.7 FTE) This streamlines support for the processing of investigations for
Title VII complaints, enhancement of mandatory reporting, and improvements in the overall
management of the complaints and reporting processes.
Statutory Authority:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Equal Pay Act of 1963; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §§
501, 504, 505, 508; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; ADA Amendments Act of 2008; Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
(GINA).
215
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S-I'J.22~.0
S-IS.-I'.IO
N -12.50x0
(S xVON.U)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$(>52.4
$577.0
$349.0
($228.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$49,879.4
$49,050.0
$42,914.0
($6,136.0)
Total Workyears
263.1
274.6
222.6
-52.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support for all of
the agency's environmental activities55. The legal support provided by this program is essential to
the agency's core mission. The personnel assigned to this program represent essential expertise in
these critical fields that the agency relies on for all of its decisions and activities in furtherance of
its mission: to protect human health and the environment.
This program provides counsel on every major action the agency takes. It plays a central role in all
statutory and regulatory interpretation of new and existing rules and all rule and guidance
development under the EPA's environmental authorities. This program provides essential legal
advice for every petition response, every judicial response and every emergency response. When
the agency acts to protect the public from pollutants or health-threatening chemicals in the air we
breathe, in the water we drink, or in the food we eat, this program provides counsel on the agency's
authority to take that action; it then provides the advice and support necessary to finalize and
implement that action.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program provides legal representation in approximately 350 defensive judicial cases each year.
Because litigation support is essential, the program will prioritize litigation in FY 2018. The
program HQ and regional staff will continue to provide legal representation in judicial and
administrative litigation for core agency environmental programs and for agency priorities. The
program will also provide counseling outside of the litigation context in the highest priority issues
arising under all the legal environmental statutes administered by EPA.
Legal counseling resources also continue to be in high demand to support the agency's response to
states seeking assistance developing or implementing environmental programs, industrial facilities
seeking permits that are required to undertake new economic activity, and citizens seeking actions
to protect local environmental quality, among other things. The program will prioritize resources
after supporting judicial and administrative litigation to counselling agency clients on these matters.
55 Resources for legal services for Support programs are included in the Legal Advice: Support program.
216
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,560.0 / -20.0 FTE) This eliminates legal support to the agency and states in
implementing the Clean Power Plan under the Clean Air Act.
• (-$2,348.0 / -31.2 FTE) This program change reduces FTE and non-pay resources for lower
priority activities as the EPA will focus on litigation support for core environmental
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute).
217
-------
Legal Advice: Support Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
N l-l.0V2.ft
N 15.-/511. It
S15.5-ltf.tt
S'JtUt
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 4,692.6
SI 5,450.0
SI 5,548.0
S98.0
Total Workyears
73.8
92.8
85.8
-7.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support for all
activities necessary for the EPA's operations.56 It provides legal counsel and support on issues
including, but not limited to: appropriations, claims, contracts, employment law, grants,
information law, intellectual property law, real property, and all aspects of civil rights law.
For example, if an EPA program office needs to know how to respond to a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request, whether it may spend money on a certain activity, or what to do when a
plaintiff files a tort claim against the agency, this program is the source of answers, options, and
advice. This program supports the EPA in maintaining high ethical standards and in complying
with all laws and policies that govern the agency's operations.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to address and manage information requests, legal support for
work under the Civil Rights Act, and employment law. There also is an ongoing need for a high
level of involvement in questions related to contracts, grants, finance, appropriations, and
employment as the agency considers options for workforce reshaping.
In addition to the increase in employee and labor relations matters, litigation and appeals under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has continued to increase steadily in both number and
complexity. The agency will focus its resources in FY 2018 on responding to administrative appeals
of initial FOIA responses and litigation. While the agency will provide targeted counselling on the
most complex and challenging FOIA requests, it will redirect other counselling resources to
litigation needs.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
56 Resources for legal services to support Environmental programs are included in the Legal Advice: Environmental program.
218
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$98.0 / -7.0 FTE) Resources and FTE changes represent the net of all changes in this
program. The program will focus its counseling and legal advice to the highest agency
priorities and focus on litigation support. Funding change represents a recalculation of base
workforce costs due to adjustments in salary, essential workforce support, and benefit costs.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute).
219
-------
Regional Science and Technology
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S 1.602.1
S I.52V.0
S 0.0
(S J.52V.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI.602.1
SI .529.0
so.o
(SI .529.0)
Total Workyears
2.3
2.0
0.0
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Regional Science and Technology (RS&T) program provides assistance to programs
implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Clean
Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Air Act; and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act. The RS&T program performs laboratory analysis, field
monitoring, and sampling investigations in order to provide credible scientific data on
environmental pollutants and conditions to agency decision makers.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,529.0 / -2.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the RS&T program. Central approach
will be replaced with ad hoc efforts.
Statutory Authorities:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Clean Water Act; Safe
Drinking Water Act; Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA); Pollution Prevention Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA); Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97
Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
220
-------
Integrated Environmental Strategies
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S I.\-I2'>.()
SI 1.-10 <10
VA15U)
(S2.MH.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,429.0
$11,469.0
$9,151.0
($2,318.0;
Total Workyears
53.0
55.8
46.0
-9.8
Program Project Description:
The Integrated Environmental Strategies (IES) program promotes economic growth from the
national level to the community level and provides tools and resources to transform the EPA into a
more effective organization. Nationally, IES is focused on growing manufacturing sectors of our
economy, streamlining the EPA's permitting processes, and using business process improvement
approaches to increase the EPA's efficiency and reduce burden on our customers: states and the
regulated community. IES also collaborates with federal, state, and municipal partners, private
sector actors, and other stakeholders to implement locally-led, community-driven approaches to
environmental protection and economic revitalization through technical assistance, policy analysis,
and training.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Strategic Environmental Management: Learning from Industry and States
Industry Sectors
In FY 2018, this program will focus on analyzing the EPA's economic and regulatory impacts on
the largest manufacturing sectors of the U.S. economy. To accomplish this, the EPA will collaborate
with manufacturing sectors of our economy to help understand the permitting needs of our
customers and how the agency may provide better customer service. The EPA will work to identify
collaborative and innovative solutions to overcome barriers to job creation and economic growth.
This will lead to better-informed rulemakings, reduced burden on the regulated community,
increased transparency about environmental performance, and develop efficient, effective,
consensus-based solutions to environmental problems.
Permit Streamlining
The EPA will focus on streamlining the environmental permitting processes, which impacts job
growth and economic development in many sectors of the economy. This work will be done in
conjunction with and in support of the President's "Memorandum Streamlining Permitting and
Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing".57
57 For more information: https://www.wlutehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/24/presidential-memorandum-streamlining-
permitting-and-reducing-regulatorv.
221
-------
Lean
The EPA will continue its use of the Lean concept to increase efficiency and effectiveness in agency
operations. This program coordinates the agency's implementation of the Lean concept and
includes a network of liaisons in every EPA program and regional office.
The program will continue to advance business process improvements through providing access to
process improvement experts, identifying projects of high strategic value, measuring process
improvements (e.g., time savings and satisfaction rates), and expanding the transfer of successful
approaches across EPA programs and organizations.
The program will continue to build on previous agency investments in the Lean concept by
partnering with states, tribes, and local government stakeholders to share Lean results and lessons
learned through Lean Action Board summits and web-based communications.
Community-Driven Environmental Protection: Providing Technical Assistance
Technical assistance and training is the cornerstone of the EPA's cooperative approach to
addressing development-related environmental challenges in communities, particularly
communities that are environmentally overburdened and economically distressed. The objective is
to help Tribal, state, and local governments increase their capacity to protect the environment while
growing their economies, creating jobs, using public and private sector investments, and other
resources more efficiently. Where appropriate, the EPA will partner with other agencies to help
achieve locally-led, community-driven approaches to protecting clean air and water, while at the
same time supporting economic revitalization.
Community-Driven Environmental Protection: Developing Tools and Delivering Training
The program will continue agency analyses on emerging trends, innovative practices, and tools that
support clean air, land, and water outcomes. The EPA will develop tools to help interested
communities incorporate innovative approaches to infrastructure and land development policies
that deliver multiple economic, community, and quality of life benefits while also managing
stormwater, reducing combined sewer overflows, improving local air quality, and achieving other
environmental benefits.
Community-Driven Environmental Protection: Increasing Effectiveness of EPA's Assistance to
Overburdened, Economically Distressed Communities
In FY 2018, the IES program will continue to lead the existing Cross-Agency Communities team
to support the Administrator's theme of national standards and neighborhood solutions. The
program will coordinate work with communities and states to identify, develop, and implement
locally led solutions that the EPA will support through existing programs. Using technical
assistance, existing knowledge and expertise, data, and the replication of known best practices, the
program will streamline existing resources to meet the needs of overburdened, economically
distressed communities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
222
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,318.0 / -9.8 FTE) This streamlines the community work and eliminates the climate
adaptation efforts of the IES program.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act (CWA), § 104(b)(3); Clean Air Act (CAA), § 103; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the
EPA's organic statute).
223
-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
s
Sl-IJ-lfi.O
N I5.20XM
S (>(>2.0
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 5,218.6
SI 4.546.0
SI 5,208.0
S662.0
Total Workyears
80.7
81.3
74.0
-7.3
Program Project Description:
The Regulatory/Economic, Management and Analysis program is responsible for reviewing agency
regulations to ensure that they are developed in accordance with the governing statutes, executive
orders, and agency priorities and are based on sound technical, economic and policy assumptions.
As part of these responsibilities, the program identifies regulations that are overly burdensome, as
well as assesses and considers the impacts of regulations on businesses, jobs, communities,
government entities, and the economy more broadly. Further, the program ensures consistent and
appropriate economic analysis of regulatory actions, as well as analyzes regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches, and considers interactions between regulations across different
environmental media. This program also ensures agency regulations comply with statutory and
other Executive Order (EO) requirements, such as the Congressional Review Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act), and EOs
12866 and 13563 regarding the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulatory review.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The program assists the Administrator and senior agency staff to implement new regulatory policy
priorities, including EO 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), EO 13777
(Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda), and EO 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth).
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue its efforts to assess, review, and improve its regulations while
considering costs and burdens to businesses, government entities, and the economy, and
maximizing the net benefits to protect human health and the environment. Key program activities
planned include:
• Manage the EPA's implementation of new EOs, including management of the regulatory
budget and offsetting rules, identifying deregulatory and burden reducing actions, analyzing
potential areas of cost savings, staffing the Regulatory Reform Taskforce, and managing
regulatory review of regulations impacting the energy sector.
• Manage the agency's internal Action Development Process, Economic Guidelines, and
related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4 on Regulatory Analysis). This program will
update the agency's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis to provide the
224
-------
Administrator with quality analysis of costs, economic impacts, jobs changes, and
environmental benefits to better inform decision making and the public about the
consequences of regulation.58
• Apply the best economy-wide modeling tools to assess the economic effects of
environmental regulatory options.
• Develop the EPA's Regulatory Agenda, while ensuring the EPA complies with new
requirements under EO 13771.
• Expand and upgrade regulatory planning and tracking tools to facilitate timely decisions
and coordination across programs.
• Serve as the agency's liaison with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
within OMB.
• Serve as the agency's liaison with the Office of the Federal Register by reviewing, editing,
and submitting documents for publication so that the public, states, other agencies, and
Congress are informed about the EPA's regulatory activities in a timely manner.
• Develop, in conjunction with the EPA's Research and Development programs and other
agency programs (i.e., air, water, etc.), improved analytical tools to advance the EPA's risk
assessment methods used in quantifying human health benefits.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$237.0) This increase will enable the agency to purchase and deploy tools for economic
modeling that better assess job and other economic impacts from regulations.
• (+$150.0) This increase supports the development of a centralized regulatory action
management tool that replaces existing outdated systems, streamlines data entry, facilitates
electronic workflows and digital signature, incorporates tasking and reporting, and
integrates with external systems such as the Federal Docket Management System and the
Office of the Federal Register. The new system will improve public access to information
about the EPA's regulatory efforts.
• (+$275.0) This increase supports the demands for policy analysis to comply with new
Executive Orders on regulatory reform. The increase also will support efforts to evaluate
and use economy-wide modeling approaches designed to examine the distribution
consequences of regulatory burdens.
58 For more information: https://www.epa.gov/en.vironmental-econ.omics/guidelmes-preparmg-econoniic-analvses.
225
-------
• (-7.3 FTE) These FTE changes represent the net of all other changes in the program to
streamline the agency activities in FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
226
-------
Science Advisory Board
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S-l. 203.8
$3,875.0
S3.5(>~.0
(S 308.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$4,203.8
$3,875.0
$3,567.0
($308.0;
Total Workyears
19.4
21.6
18.7
-2.9
Program Project Description:
Congress established the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 to advise the Administrator
on a wide range of highly visible and important scientific matters. The Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) was established in 1977 under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1977 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical
bases for EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SAB and the CASAC, both
statutorily-mandated chartered Federal Advisory Committees, draw from a balanced range of non-
EPA scientists and technical specialists from academia, communities, states, independent research
institutions, and industry. This program provides management and technical support to these
advisory committees, which provide the EPA's Administrator with independent advice and peer
review on scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues, criteria, standards, regulations,
and research planning.59
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
FY 2018 resource levels are a unique opportunity for the EPA's SAB to reprioritize activities.
Authorizing legislation and scientific integrity mandates that each peer review meets certain
minimum standards for a successful independent review. The SAB and CASAC plan to conduct
approximately 1-2 reviews and produce approximately 1-2 reports. Remaining funding will be
committed to the ongoing database transition out of Lotus Notes.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$308.0 / -2.9 FTE) This funding change streamlines support for conducting peer reviews,
hosting meetings to assess Integrated Risk Information System chemicals, and
implementing business process improvements to assure logistical support is provided to
help the SAB and CASAC adhere to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
59 For more information: "http ://www. epa. gov/sab/, http://www.epa. gov/casac/"
227
-------
Statutory Authority:
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA);
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); Clean Air Act.
228
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
229
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
S3!U.-!>(>.()
S3I0.V-/S.0
S3!>1.001.0
(SV. V4'M)
Science & Technology
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Building and Facilities
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
Environmental Program and Management (EPM) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program fund the agency's rent, utilities, and security. This program also supports
centralized administrative activities and support services, including health and safety,
environmental compliance and management, facilities maintenance and operations, space planning,
sustainable facilities and energy conservation planning and support, property management,
printing, mail, and transportation services. Funding is allocated for such services among the major
appropriations for the agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to invest to reconfigure the EPA's workspaces, enabling the
agency to release office space and reduce long-term rent costs, consistent with HR 446560, the
Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016. Since FY 2012 the EPA has released over 517
thousand square feet of office space nationwide, resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of
nearly $20 million across all appropriations. These savings help offset the EPA's escalating rent
and security costs. Currently planned consolidations will allow the EPA to release another
estimated 336 thousand square feet of office space. For FY 2018, the agency is requesting $163.13
million for rent, $9.24 million for utilities, and $25.88 million for security in the EPM
appropriation.
At the requested resource levels, the EPA will continue to manage lease agreements with GSA and
other private landlords, maintain EPA facilities, fleet, equipment, and fund costs associated with
utilities and building security needs. The EPA also will meet regulatory Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) obligations and provide health and safety training to field staff
60 For additional information, refer to: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con.gress/house-bill/4465. Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act of 2016.
230
-------
(e.g., inspections, monitoring, On-Scene Coordinators), and track capital equipment of $25,000 or
more.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,395.0 / -36.4 FTE) This reflects the net change in agency activities in FY 2018
including:
o support for employee wellness and worklife initiatives such as federal cost sharing for
fitness centers, health wellness and CPR/ AED training services, and libraries;
o preventative maintenance of facilities, equipment, and vehicle fleet;
o custodial services; and
o agency's mail delivery services.
• (-$2,385.0) This decreases rent funding as planned space consolidations complete in FY
2018.
• (-$1,811.0) This reflects the consolidation of entry points into facilities, which will decrease
the number of security guards required.
• (-$4,106.0) This reduction modifies the timing of the EPA's facility consolidations. Costs
associated with moves and consolidations will be limited to supporting core agency
operations in an expedited and cost effective manner.
• (-$250.0) This eliminates programs associated with: environmental management systems;
comprehensive facility energy audits; re-commissioning; and sustainable building design.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
231
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S
N '2.0-1'.0
V)-/.
(S -J3S.0)
linking I nderground Slorago Tanks
$426.0
$423.0
$423.0
$0.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$21,331.2
$22,084.0
$12,226.0
($9,858.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$92,465.0
$94,554.0
$77,358.0
($17,196.0)
Total Workyears
458.5
493.4
394.1
-99.3
Program Project Description:
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management of
integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability processes,
and financial systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. This includes developing,
managing, and supporting a performance management system consistent with the Government
Performance and Results Modernization Act for the agency that involves strategic planning and
accountability for environmental, fiscal, and managerial results; providing policy, systems,
training, reports, and oversight essential for the financial operations of the EPA; managing the
agencywide Working Capital Fund; providing financial payment and support services for the EPA
through three finance centers, as well as specialized fiscal and accounting services for many of the
EPA programs; and managing the agency's annual budget process. This program also implements
the Digital Accountability and Transparency (DATA) Act of 2014 and Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) of 2015 requirements.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will continue to provide resource stewardship to ensure that all agency programs operate
with fiscal responsibility and management integrity, are efficiently and consistently delivered
nationwide, and demonstrate results. The EPA will maintain key planning, budgeting, and financial
management activities. The EPA will sustain basic operations and maintenance of core agency
financial management systems: Compass, PeoplePlus (Time and Attendance), Budget Formulation
System, and related financial reporting systems.
The program will continue to support the agency's Lean efforts to continue to improve as a high
performance organization and business process improvement agencywide. To date, the agency has
successfully conducted several Lean events to streamline and improve financial stewardship across
the agency, including the interagency agreement management process, the unliquidated obligation
or deobligation process, and is proceeding with recommendations from the software applications
accounting Lean processes.
232
-------
In FY 2018, as the agency reprioritizes activities, the program will focus on core responsibilities in
the areas of strategic planning and enterprise risk management; budget preparation; financial
reporting; and, transaction processing. The EPA will adjust its timeline to modernize and modify
the agency's Account Code Structure to improve tracking and reporting capabilities, maximizing
the benefits within the Compass financial system. In addition, the DATA Act coordination and
implementation will be performed within the defined funding levels.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to use the performance metrics and OMB FedStat meetings to
answer fundamental business questions to mission-support services and opportunities for service
improvements. The program will continue to implement FITARA requirements in accordance with
the EPA's Implementation Plan.61 The Chief Information Officer will continue to be engaged
throughout the budget planning process to ensure that IT needs are properly planned and resourced
in accordance with FITARA.
The EPA is dedicated to reducing fraud, waste, and abuse and strengthening internal controls over
improper payments. Since the implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002,
the EPA has reviewed, sampled, and monitored its payments to protect against erroneous payments.
The agency's payment streams are consistently well under the government-wide threshold of 1.5
percent and $10 million of estimated improper payments. The EPA conducts risk assessments in
its principal payment streams, including grants, contracts, commodities, payroll, travel, purchase
cards, Hurricane Sandy funding, and the Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. When
overpayments are identified, they are promptly recovered. The EPA has expanded its risk
assessments, performed statistical sampling, set appropriate reduction/recovery targets, and
implemented corrective action plans. The agency conducts these activities to reduce the potential
for improper payments and ensure compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act, as
amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-204) and the
Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-248).
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,703.0 / -54.0 FTE) This streamlines efforts in the areas of strategic planning, enterprise
risk management, budget preparation, financial reporting, and transaction processing.
• (-$3,635.0) This focuses resources on maintenance of the agency's existing financial
management systems such as, Account Code Structure, reporting tool (Compass Data
Warehouse), and cost allocation.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified as Title 5 App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
61 For more information: http://www.epa.gov/open/fitara-implemmtation-plan-and-cluef-informallon-officer-assigmiient-plan.
233
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SMt.l
SM).-II)(>.!)
S2-l.'J'S.O
(S
linking I nderground Slorago Tanks
SI 52.5
SI 45.0
SI 38.0
(S7.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$22,129.0
$22,418.0
$14,036.0
($8,382.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$52,455.8
$52,969.0
$39,152.0
($13,817.0)
Total Workyears
276.7
304.5
214.2
-90.3
Program Project Description:
Environmental Program and Management (EPM) resources in the Acquisition Management
Program support the EPA's contract activities, which is responsible for planning, awarding and
administering contracts for the agency, including issuing acquisition policy and interpreting
acquisition regulations; administering training for contracting and program acquisition personnel;
providing advice and oversight to regional procurement offices; and providing information
technology improvements for acquisition.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to process contract actions in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and guidance from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP). The EPA will maintain the EPA Acquisition System (EAS).
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement its Strategic Sourcing Program (SSP), thereby
enhancing purchase coordination, improving price uniformity and knowledge-sharing, and
leveraging small business capabilities to meet acquisition goals. The SSP also allows the agency to
research, assess, and award contract vehicles that will maximize time and resource savings. The
SSP serves as a foundation for effective financial and resource management because it simplifies
the acquisition process and reduces costs. Long term implementation of the SSP can potentially
transform the agency's acquisition process into a strategically driven function, ensuring maximum
value for every acquisition dollar spent. The agency has established a goal of obtaining at least five
percent savings for all strategically sourced categories of goods and services. Through FY 2016,
the EPA has saved approximately $8 million from strategic sourcing initiatives focused on VoIP,
laboratory supplies, print, cellular services, shipping, office supplies, equipment maintenance, and
Microsoft software. In FY 2017, the EPA anticipates between $3 to $4 million in savings.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to focus on implementing the Financial Information Technology
Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) by:
234
-------
• Avoiding vendor lock-in by letting contracts with multiple vendors or confining the scope
of the contract to a limited task; and
• Developing acquisition vehicles that support the agency in FITARA implementation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,428.0 / -31.0 FTE) This streamlines contractor support for: helpdesk services for the
EPA Acquisition System; the closeout of contracts; and existing priorities like the Defense
Contract Management Agency for Audit Services and the Virtual Acquisition Office (a
source for up-to-date government acquisition news, research, and analysis). This reduction
also eliminates funding for Contracts Management Assessment Program Reviews which
enable the agency to self-identify and remedy internal weaknesses, and the agency's
training for its acquisition community.
Statutory Authority:
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as
amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
235
-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S2~.202.ti
.S 2x2-1 SM
.S
(S(tM-lM)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$2,845.0
$2,889.0
$1,591.0
($1,298.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$30,047.6
$28,137.0
$20,155.0
($7,982.0)
Total Workyears
154.8
161.2
108.5
-52.7
Program Project Description:
Environmental Program and Management (EPM) resources in the Financial Assistance Grants and
Interagency Agreement (IA) Management program support the management of grants and IAs,
and suspension and debarment activities. Grants comprise approximately 40 percent of the EPA's
overall budget. Resources in this program ensure that the EPA's management of grants and IAs
meet the highest fiduciary standards, that grant/IA funding produces measurable results for
environmental programs, and that the suspension and debarment program effectively protects the
government's business interest.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In accordance with the overarching 2016-2020 EPA Grants Management Plan (GMP), the EPA
will continue to implement activities to achieve efficiencies while enhancing quality and
accountability. The EPA will invest to modernize grant and IA IT systems by:
• The EPA will migrate away from aging Lotus Notes technology by deploying the Post-
Award and Closeout modules of the Next Generation Grants System (NGGS), which has
a low deployment time due to the system's modular architecture. NGGS will demand fewer
training resources as the system is based on existing grants system infrastructure. NGGS
relies on a flexible platform that will enable it to adapt to changing technology and business
processes and will allow it to easily integrate with other agency systems.
• Eliminating reliance on paper grant files, the agency will move to an electronic system for
grants management records.
• Strengthening grant decision-making, the EPA will enhance the capability of web-based
reporting tools to provide real-time information to grant managers.
In addition to IT-related investments, the GMP focuses on reducing the administrative burden on
the EPA and grants recipients, and on improving grants management procedures. Specifically, the
agency will continue to: 1) fully implement the streamlining reforms in OMB's Uniform Grants
Guidance; 2) streamline the EPA's grants management by developing a comprehensive framework
236
-------
of effective and efficient policies; 3) review, refine, and streamline (Lean) the processes for
Intergovernmental Review; and 4) implement an expanded Grants Place of Performance (POP)
policy, supported by a user-friendly mapping interface, to provide more accurate and useful
locational grant data.
The EPA is a recognized leader in suspension and debarment. The agency will continue to make
aggressive use of discretionary debarments and suspensions as well as statutory debarments under
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to protect the government's business interests. In FY 2018,
the EPA will focus suspension and debarment activity to the most egregious violations. Congress
and federal courts have long recognized federal agencies' inherent authority and obligation to
exclude nonresponsible parties from eligibility to receive government contracts and
nonprocurement awards (for example: grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan guarantees).
A number of recent federal statutes, GAO reports, and OMB directives require that federal
agencies administer effective suspension and debarment programs in order to protect taxpayers
from unscrupulous actors.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,593.0 / -43.1 FTE) This change reflects expected efficiencies in the processing of grant
and IA awards, lower requested grant funding levels throughout the agency and a review
of unliquidated obligations. The EPA will target funds to core grant and IA activities.
• (-$840.0) The agency will focus on pre-award reviews; post-award monitoring;
compliance; administrative advanced monitoring reviews; management effectiveness
reviews; baseline monitoring; and audit follow-up activities on the highest risk awards.
• (-$190.0) This funding change streamlines training and development activities for the
EPA's grants and IA workforce and recipient training.
• (-$389.0) This funding change reflects a focus on the most egregious suspension and
debarment violations.
• (-$672.0) This funding change streamlines efforts to further develop the Grantee
Compliance Database System and the Case Application for Debarment and Suspension
Management System.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, § 2455.
237
-------
Human Resources Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S-IO. '56.0
S-IO. 5 J 2.0
(s :.(> ~3.o)
I Ia/artlous Subslance Superl'iind
$4,908.5
$6,333.0
$4,580.0
($1,753.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$45,664.5
$49,518.0
$45,092.0
($4,426.0)
Total Workyears
216.7
247.1
223.0
-24.1
Program Project Description:
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) resources for the Human Resources (HR)
Management program support human capital activities throughout the EPA. To help achieve its
mission and maximize employee productivity and job satisfaction, the EPA continually works to
improve business processes for critical human capital functions including recruitment, hiring,
employee development, performance management, and workforce planning. EPM resources also
support advisory committee work aimed at managing programs that address scientific and
environmental issues.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective workforce management is critical to the EPA's ability to accomplish its mission. The
EPA's efforts in HR enterprise risk management include attracting and retaining a high-
performing, diverse workforce; implementing training and development programs; delivering
employee services; streamlining HR processes; and strengthening performance management,
labor, and employee relations programs. The EPA will continue to support efforts that increase the
quality of core operations, improve productivity, and achieve cost savings in mission-support
functions including human capital management.
In FY 2018, the EPA will focus its workforce planning efforts to strategically reshape the agency
based on changes in program priorities and technological advances. The EPA anticipates a spike
in workforce planning needs to support the reshaping and organizational restructuring across the
agency. The agency also will continue to strengthen its performance management activities,
including developing management tools, targeting and providing training, leveraging the First Line
Supervisors Advisory Group and performing mentoring on an as-needed basis.
The EPA will focus on delivering statutorily required services associated with the Employee
Counseling Assistance Program, the Federal Worker's Compensation Program, the Drug-free
Workplace Program, and Unemployment Compensation. The EPA also will continue its focus on
Labor and Employee Relations (LER) by administering and/or negotiating national and
Headquarters labor agreements and providing advice, guidance, and assistance to regional and
local level negotiations. The EPA will continue efforts to strengthen managers' and supervisors'
institutional knowledge on LER related matters; provide advisory and counseling support
238
-------
agencywide; and conduct analysis of human capital information to help managers in their
functions.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,673.0/ -24.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction for:
o Operational support for the following HR programs being utilized agencywide: the
EPA's Child Care Subsidies; the agency's recruitment and diversity and inclusion
activities; the EPA's Human Resources Council (HRC) and National Partnership
Council (NPC); the Phased Retirement; the Leave Bank; and the Workplace Solutions,
o Enhancements and maintenance of the EPA's HR IT Systems including HR Line of
Business (LoB), data management and analysis, troubleshooting, and change requests;
o Maintenance of the EPA University portal that provides on-line training and
professional development;
o Support for Federal Advisory Committees not mandated by statute; and
o Centrally-provided, non-mandatory training.
Statutory Authority:
Title 5 of the U.S.C.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L.
98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
239
-------
Workforce Reshaping
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$0.0
$0.0
$10,995.0
$10,995.0
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
so.o
$0.0
.S I't.O
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$0.0
$0.0
$10,437.0
$10,437.0
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
$68,151.0
$68,151.0
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Environmental Protection Management (EPM) resources for the workforce reshaping program
support organizational restructuring efforts throughout the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
To help achieve its mission, the EPA will develop, review and analyze mission requirements and
implement options to effectively align and redistribute the agency's workforce based on program
priorities, resource reallocation, and technological advances.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective workforce reshaping is critical to the EPA's ability to accomplish its mission. The EPA
will be examining our statutory functions and processes to eliminate inefficiencies and streamline
our processes. Primary criteria will include effectiveness and accountability, as the EPA is focused
on greater value and real results. These analyses will likely create a need to significantly reshape
the workforce. The agency anticipates the need to offer voluntary early out retirement authority
(VERA) and voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP), and potentially relocation expenses, as
part of the workforce reshaping effort. The use of VERA/VSIP will increase voluntary attrition and
enable more focused support for the agency's highest priority work.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$46,719.0) In support of the reprioritization of agency activities, this increase will
support:
o Voluntary early out retirement authority (VERA)
o Voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP)
o Workforce support costs for relocation of employees as we realign work assignments.
240
-------
Statutory Authority:
5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2) includes the statutory VERA provisions for employees covered by the Civil
Service Retirement System; 5 U.S.C. 8414(b)(1)(B) includes the statutory VERA provisions for
employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System; Section 1313(b) of the Chief
Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296, approved November 25, 2002) authorized
the VSIP option under regulations issued by OPM, as codified in sections 3521 to 3525 of title 5, United
States Code (U.S.C.).
241
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
242
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$3,772.1
$3,122.0
$2,274.0
($848.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
Si-<>H. 1
S5~,f>VV.O
s-is.tos.n
(S'J.l.l/.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$61,480.2
$60,821.0
$50,842.0
($9,979.0)
Total Workyears
399.9
418.7
416.5
-2.2
Program Project Description:
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
1996 and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (known as PRIA3), the
EPA is charged with protecting people from the health risks that pesticide use can pose. FIFRA
requires the EPA to register pesticide products before they are allowed to be marketed for use in
the United States. Registration is based on review of scientific data sufficient to demonstrate that
the product can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on people or
the environment.
The statutes above charge the EPA with issuing pesticide registrations and setting tolerances
(maximum residue levels) for pesticides in food and animal feed and with periodically reviewing
the registrations and tolerances that the agency issues, to ensure that public health is adequately
protected. The program addresses these requirements by conducting risk assessments using the
latest scientific methods for new and existing pesticides. The agency scientists examine the risks
that pesticides pose to human health through the diet and through exposure at work, at home, in
school, or at play. The EPA pesticide program also reduces the risks of disease by ensuring the
efficacy of public health pesticides (pesticides that control pests or bacteria that vector disease or
for other recognized health protection uses). The EPA encourages the development and use of safer
pesticides and educates pesticide users and the public in general through labeling as well as public
outreach.
Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Setting
Under the FFDCA, if a pesticide is to be used in a manner that may result in pesticide residues in
food or animal feed, before it can be registered, the EPA must establish a tolerance, or maximum
legal residue level or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, for each affected food or feed
commodity. To establish a tolerance, the EPA must find that the residues are "safe," which, under
FFDCA, means that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide residue in food and from all other exposure except occupational exposure.
The passage of FQPA in 1996, which amended both FIFRA and FFDCA, not only introduced this
stricter safety standard, it also mandated the consideration of a number of other factors including
243
-------
cumulative and aggregate effects. When assessing a pesticide registration or tolerance, the EPA
must consider the cumulative effects of related pesticides with a common mode of toxicity and the
potential for endocrine disruption effects and apply an appropriate safety factor to ensure the
protection of infants and children as outlined below. In addition, the EPA must include aggregate
exposure, including all dietary exposure, drinking water, and non-occupational exposures. All these
pesticide exposures from food, drinking water, and home and garden use must be considered when
determining allowable levels of pesticides in food. Since the passage of FQPA, the EPA's risk
assessment process must incorporate a 10-fold safety factor (10X) for infants and children unless
reliable information in the database on the chemical indicates that it can be reduced or removed.
Under FQPA, even the limited, temporary use under an emergency exemption may not be allowed
without the establishment of a tolerance.
To comply with statutory mandates, the EPA conducts risk assessments using the latest scientific
methods to determine the risks that pesticides pose to human health, including reviewing
comprehensive toxicity, residue chemistry, and other data submitted by pesticide manufacturers
(registrants) as required by the EPA, and consulting public literature or other sources of supporting
information regarding the pesticide's effects or exposure. Toxicity data is used to identify the
hazard potential of a pesticide. Residue chemistry data is used to determine the identity and amount
of pesticide in or on food. The agency reviews all data to make sure they were developed according
to standard practices within the discipline and the EPA's test guidelines. In addition to toxicity and
residue chemistry data, the EPA also may use other data to refine and make more realistic exposure
assessments for residues on food and exposure to workers, bystanders and people who live, work,
play, and go to school in treated areas. The result of these assessments could be the need for label
restrictions in certain areas to reduce the exposure to safe levels. Risk assessments undergo an
internal peer review and regulatory decisions are posted on the Internet for review and comment to
ensure that these actions are transparent and stakeholders are engaged in decisions affecting their
health and environment. When complex scientific issues arise, the agency consults the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel flittp://www.epa.gov/scipoty/sap/) for independent scientific advice.
Periodic Review of Registrations and Tolerances
Not only must the EPA conduct risk assessments before the initial registration of each pesticide for
each use, but the FQPA amendments introduced the requirement that every pesticide registration
be reviewed at least every 15 years. This periodic review is accomplished through our Registration
Review Program.62 In the interest of efficiency and fairness and to facilitate the assessment of
cumulative exposures, the agency reviews certain related pesticides (such as the pyrethroids and
pyrethrins, the neonicotinoids, or the fumigants) at the same time. Pesticide cases may be related
by chemical class or structure, mode of action, use, or for other reasons.
Ensuring Proper Use and Mitigating Risks of Pesticides through Labeling
Under FIFRA, it is illegal to use a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the label
instructions and precautions. Therefore, the EPA uses pesticide labels to indicate what uses are
appropriate in order to ensure that the pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on
human health or the environment, as determined by the risk assessment. The EPA pesticide product
62 fattps: //www, epa. gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
244
-------
registrations include required labeling instructions and precautions. When risks are identified
during the initial registration or during registration review, the agency may mitigate those risks by
requiring label changes, for example, requiring personal protective equipment for applicators, or
changing the application method or rate or the time when the treated area may be reentered.
Ensuring the proper use of pesticides prevents unnecessary pesticide exposure to the person
applying the pesticide and people working, living, or playing nearby. It also prevents excessive
residues in the food people eat and in animal feed.
Reducing Pesticide Risks to People through the Registration of Lower Risk Pesticides
To further protect human health, this program emphasizes the use of reduced risk methods of pest
control, including the use of reduced risk pesticides and helping growers and other pesticide users
learn about new, safer products and methods of using pesticides. The EPA began promoting
reduced risk pesticides in 1993 by giving registration priority to pesticides that have lower toxicity
to humans and non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants; low potential for contaminating
groundwater; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and compatibility with Integrated Pest
Management (IPM).63 Biological pesticides and biotechnology often represent lower risk solutions
to pest problems.
Several other countries and international organizations also have instituted programs to facilitate
registering reduced risk pesticides. The EPA works with the international scientific community and
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries to
register new reduced risk pesticides and to establish related tolerances (maximum residue limits).
Through these efforts, the EPA can help reduce risks to Americans from foods imported from other
countries.
Protecting Workers from On-the-job Pesticide Risks
Millions of America's workers are exposed to pesticides in occupations such as agriculture, lawn
care, food preparation, and landscape maintenance. Protecting workers from potential effects of
pesticides is an important role of the pesticide program. Workers in several occupations may be
exposed to pesticides when they prepare pesticides for use, such as by mixing a concentrate with
water or loading the pesticide into application equipment; applying pesticides, such as in an
agricultural or commercial setting; or when they enter an area where pesticides have been applied
to perform allowed tasks such as picking crops.
The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and the certification and training rule are key elements of
the EPA's strategy for reducing occupational exposure to agricultural pesticides. The EPA's revised
WPS, finalized in 2015, will afford farm workers similar health protections to those already enj oyed
by other workers in other jobs.
In FY 2016 and the early part of FY 2017, the EPA provided guidance materials to assist states and
agricultural employers to understand the new WPS requirements that went into effect on January
2, 2017. Additional materials are under development to assist states and agricultural employers to
63 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site:
http://www.epa.Eov/pesticides/health/reducmg.htm.
245
-------
understand the additional requirements that are targeted to go into effect on January 2, 2018. In
early 2017, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture petitioned the EPA to
extend the implementation date for the WPS to allow for additional time for the EPA to work with
the states to ensure that sufficient materials were available to the agricultural community to
successfully implement the new requirements. In April 2017, the EPA granted this petition and
will soon begin the regulatory process to change the implementation date to January 2, 2019.
Following signature of the new rule, the EPA immediately began an extensive schedule of trainings
for state regulators and state inspectors training, because training our state co-regulators is a top
priority. While resource intensive, the agency prioritized providing in-person training to states and
regions to allow for face-to-face dialogue on the new requirements in the final rule issued in 2015.
The EPA also had success conducting over 30 webinars in less than one year and has plans for
additional webinars for the rest of FY 2017 and throughout FY 2018. For more information, see
https://www.epa.eov/pesticide-worker-safetv/revisions-worker-protection-standard.
Preventing Disease through Public Health Pesticides
Antimicrobial pesticides play an important role in public health and safety by killing germs,
bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, and slime. Some of these products are used to sterilize hard
surfaces in hospitals. Chemical disinfection of hard, non-porous surfaces such as floors, bed rails,
and tables is one component of the infection control systems in hospitals, food processing
operations, and other places where disease-causing microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses,
may be present. In reviewing registrations for antimicrobials, the EPA is required to ensure that
antimicrobials maintain their effectiveness.64 The EPA's Antimicrobial Testing Program has been
testing hospital sterilants, disinfectants, and tuberculocides since 1991 to help ensure that products
in the marketplace meet stringent efficacy standards. Other pesticides also protect public health,
such as insecticides and rodenticides that combat insects and other pests that carry diseases such as
West Nile virus, Lyme disease, and rabies.
Outreach and Education
Giving priority to reduced risk and Integrated Pest Management (IPM)-friendly pesticides are two
steps toward protecting human health. It is important for people using pesticides to be well
informed, to understand the importance of reading, and following label directions and the
importance of proper disposal, and they also need to understand how to protect themselves from
pests that can transmit disease. The Pesticide Program invests in environmental education and
training efforts for growers, pesticide applicators, and workers, as well as the public in general. The
EPA will continue to work to reduce the number and severity of pesticide exposure incidents by
developing effective communication, environmental education, and training programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides, and
other registration requests in accordance with statutory requirements. In addition, the agency will
be reviewing, under the registration review program, pesticides that are already in the market
against current scientific standards for human health. To further advance the EPA's work
64FIFRA Section 3(h)(3), 7 U.S.C. 136a(h)(3).
246
-------
supporting environmental justice and children's health, the EPA will process these registration
requests with special consideration for susceptible populations, especially children. Specifically,
the EPA will focus on the foods commonly eaten by children in order to reduce children's pesticide
exposure where the science identifies potential concerns. The EPA uses data from various sources,
including the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES), to assess children's potential risk from pesticides. Pesticide registration actions
focus on the evaluation of pesticide products before they enter the market. The EPA will review
pesticide data and impose use restrictions and instructions needed to ensure that pesticides used
according to label directions also will not result in unreasonable risk. During its pre-market review,
the EPA will consider human health and environmental concerns as well as the pesticide's potential
benefits.
The EPA will continue to emphasize the registration of reduced risk pesticides, including
biopesticides, in order to provide farmers and other pesticide users with new safer alternatives. In
FY 2018, the agency, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
will work to ensure that minor use registrations receive appropriate support. The EPA will ensure
that needs are met for reduced risk pesticides for minor use crops. Additionally, the EPA will assist
farmers and other pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and methods of using
existing products through workshops, demonstrations, small grants, and materials available on the
website and in print. The EPA also will continue to support biotechnology efforts to educate the
American public about pesticides related water quality issues and standards.
During FY 2018, the EPA will continue to review the registrations of existing pesticides and
develop work plans for pesticides entering the review pipeline. The priority will be toward
reviewing those pesticides where there is indication of a need to mitigate risk. The goal of the
registration review process is to review pesticide registrations every fifteen years to ensure that
pesticides already in the marketplace meet the most current scientific standards and to address
concerns identified after the original registration.65 The completion of the first round of these
reviews is due in FY 2022. This program, as mandated by statute, supports the EPA's priorities
including ensuring the safety of chemicals and protecting America's waters.
For pesticides registered before October 1, 2007, the EPA has a statutory mandate to make
registration review decisions by October 1, 2022. There are atotal of 725 such cases. For each case,
the steps in this process include, in this order, opening dockets, developing work plans, completing
risk assessments, and making decisions regarding any risk management measures. It is important
to open dockets and develop work plans for as many cases as possible early in the process so that
there is time to complete the risk assessments and make decisions by the 2022 deadline. The agency
planned this ramp down in targets for opening dockets and completing work plans so it could focus
its resources on completing risk assessments and making decisions to meet its statutory deadline
by 2022. The EPA anticipates having completed the opening of dockets in 2017 (completed all
725). There will be zero (0) dockets in FY 2018.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue to work toward our commitment to environmental justice and
protection of children's health. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA is statutorily
65 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Registration Review Internet Site:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/registration review/index.fatal
247
-------
required to ensure that its regulatory decisions are protective of children's health and other
vulnerable subpopulations. The EPA will continue to provide locally-based technical assistance
and guidance by partnering with states and tribes on implementation of pesticide decisions.
Technical assistance and outreach such as workshops, demonstration projects, briefings, and
informational meetings also will continue in areas including pesticide safety training and use of
lower risk pesticides.
The EPA will continue to engage the public, the scientific community, and other stakeholders in its
policy development and implementation. This will encourage a reasonable transition for farmers
and others from the older, potentially more hazardous pesticides, to the newer pesticides that have
been registered using the latest available scientific information.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue implementing improvements to the Pesticide Registration
Information System (PRISM). Work on PRISM and other areas will include streamlining
operations and merging compatible and related work areas in order to maximize resources through
management efficiencies and direct reporting improvements. The focus of the project is to achieve
paperwork burden reduction by converting paper-based processes into electronic processes for the
Pesticide program's regulated entities, creating a streamlined electronic workflow to support
pesticide product registration and chemical review, and creating a centralized repository of
regulatory decisions and scientific information. Overall, the project will streamline approximately
150 existing business processes.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,131.0 / -32.6 FTE) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees. This reduction recognizes the adoption
of some process improvements in the registration and registration review processes and the
completion of some upgrades to program IT systems.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), §408.
248
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
.Wo/.-/
$37,222.0
S3I.V30.0
(S3.2'J 2.0)
Science & Technology
$1,737.5
$2,324.0
$2,195.0
($129.0;
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$41,388.9
$39,546.0
$34,125.0
($5,421.0)
Total Workyears
280.4
269.3
268.4
-0.9
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires the EPA to register a
pesticide if, among other things, when used in accordance with labeling and common practices, the
product "will also not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." The goal
of this program is to protect the environment from the potential risks posed by pesticide use. The
EPA must conduct risk assessments before the initial registration of each pesticide for each use, as
well as re-evaluate each pesticide at least every 15 years, as required by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA). This periodic review is accomplished through the EPA's Pesticide Registration
Review program.
In addition to FIFRA responsibilities, the agency has distinct obligations under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). 1This includes ensuring that pesticide regulatory decisions also will not destroy
or adversely modify designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of species
listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) (jointly the Services).
Assessing the Risks Pesticides Pose to the Environment
To accomplish the goals set out in the two statutes, the EPA conducts ecological risk assessments66
to determine what risks are posed by each pesticide to plants, animals, and ecosystems that are not
the targets of the pesticide and whether changes are necessary to protect the environment. The EPA
has extensive authority to require the submission of data to support its scientific decisions and uses
the latest scientific methods to conduct these ecological risk assessments. The agency requires
applicants for pesticide registration to conduct and submit a wide range of environmental laboratory
and field studies. These studies examine the ecological effects or toxicity of a pesticide and its
breakdown products on various terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants, and the chemical fate
and transport of the pesticide (how it behaves and where it goes in soil, air, and water resources).
The EPA uses these and other data to prepare an environmental fate assessment and a hazard, or
ecological effects, assessment that interprets the relevant toxicity information for the pesticide and
its degradation products. Using environmental fate data and exposure models, the EPA's scientists
estimate exposure of different animals and plants to pesticide residues in the environment. Finally,
66 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ecosvstein/ecorisk.htm.
249
-------
these scientists integrate the toxicity information with the exposure data to determine the ecological
risk from the use of the pesticide or whether it is safe for the environment and wildlife. These
processes are described more fully below.
Assessing Toxicity to Wildlife and Plants
Toxicology studies are carried out on plants and animals that have been chosen for testing because
they broadly represent non-target organisms (living things the pesticide is not intended to kill or
otherwise control). Animals and plants are exposed to different amounts of a pesticide to determine
short- and long-term responses to varying concentrations. Some of the impacts on animals the EPA
evaluates are the short- and long-term effects of varying amounts of pesticide exposure to insects
and other invertebrates, fish, and birds. For plants, the EPA scientists assess how poisonous a
pesticide is to plants, how the pesticide affects a seed's ability to germinate and emerge, as well as
how healthy and vigorous the plant grows to be. Toxicological testing and scientific measurements
are conducted under strict guidelines and approved methods.67 Exacting standards are necessary for
consistency in evaluations of pesticide safety and for comparisons among chemicals.
Determining the Environmental Fate of a Pesticide
After determining the toxicity of a pesticide, it is important to find out what happens to it in the
environment after it has been applied, and therefore, how it might affect the environment. Required
studies measure the interaction of pesticides with soils, air, sunlight, surface water, and ground
water. Some of the basic questions that must be answered in these studies are: (1) How fast and by
what means does the pesticide degrade? (2) What are the breakdown chemicals? and (3) How much
of the pesticide or its breakdown chemicals will travel from the application site and where will they
accumulate in the environment? These tests include how the pesticide breaks down in water, soil,
and light, how easily it evaporates in air and how quickly it travels through soil. The EPA uses
these tests to develop estimates of pesticide concentrations in the environment. The EPA scientists
evaluate the role of the drift of spray and dust from pesticide applications on pesticide residues that
can cause health and environmental effects and property damage.
Putting the Pieces Together
To evaluate a pesticide's environmental risks, the EPA examines all of the toxicity and
environmental fate data together to determine what risks its use may pose to the environment. The
process of comparing toxicity information and the amount of the pesticide a given organism may
be exposed to in the environment is called risk assessment. A pesticide can be toxic at one exposure
level and have little or no effect at another. Thus, the risk assessor's job is to determine the
relationship between possible exposure to a pesticide and the resulting harmful effects.
If the ecosystem will not be exposed to levels of a pesticide shown to cause problems, the EPA
concludes that the pesticide is not likely to harm plants or wildlife. On the other hand, if the
ecosystem exposure levels are suspected or known to produce problems, the program will then
work to better understand and reduce the risks to acceptable levels. If the risk assessment indicates
a high likelihood of hazard to wildlife, the program may require additional testing, require that the
61 http://www.epa.gov/raf/piiblications/giiidelmes-ecological-risk.-assessiiient.htiii.
250
-------
pesticide be applied only by specially-trained people (restricted use), or decide not to allow its use.
In addition, the EPA may require monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects on water
sources, or may require additional data from the registrant. Decisions on risk reduction measures
are based on a consideration of both pesticide risks and benefits.
The agency reviews all data to make sure they were developed according to standard practices
within the discipline and the EPA's test guidelines. Risk assessments are peer reviewed and
regulatory decisions are posted on the Internet for review and comment to ensure that these actions
are transparent and stakeholders are engaged in decisions that affect their environment. When
complex scientific issues arise, the agency consults the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
(http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/) for independent scientific advice.
Risk Mitigation
To ensure unreasonable risks are avoided, the EPA may impose risk mitigation measures such as
modifying use rates or application methods, restricting uses, or denying uses. In some regulatory
decisions, the EPA may determine that uncertainties in the risk determination need to be reduced
and may subsequently require monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects on water
sources or the development and submission of additional laboratory or field study data by the
pesticide registrant.
The EPA's Pesticide Program has been actively engaged in a number of initiatives to help prevent
problems related to the drift of spray and dust from pesticide applications. These initiatives include:
broadening the understanding of the science and predictability of pesticide drift based on many new
studies; improving the clarity and enforceability of product label use directions and drift
restrictions; facilitating the use of drift-reducing application technologies and best management
practices to minimize drift; and promoting applicator education and training programs.
Ensuring Proper Pesticide Use through Labeling
Under FIFRA, it is illegal to use a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the label
instructions and precautions. The EPA uses pesticide labels to indicate what uses are appropriate
and to ensure that the pesticide is used at the application rates and according to the methods and
timing approved as a condition of registration. When the EPA registers a pesticide product, it
requires specific labeling instructions and precautions. When risks are identified during the initial
registration or during registration review, the agency may mitigate those risks by requiring label
changes. For example, the EPA may require buffer zones around water sources to prevent
contamination of water or endangering aquatic plants and wildlife. Other examples are changing
the application method, or rate or timing of applications when pollinators are not present to prevent
risks to pollinators such as bees.
Reducing Risk Through the Use of Safer Pesticides and Methods
To further protect the environment, this program68 emphasizes the use of reduced risk methods of
pest control, including the use of reduced risk pesticides and helping growers and other pesticide
68 Reducing Pesticide Risk (htto: //www, epa. gov/pesticides/health/reducing .html.
251
-------
users learn about new, safer products and methods of using pesticides. The EPA began promoting
reduced risk pesticides in 1993 by giving registration priority to pesticides that have lower toxicity
to people and non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants; low potential for contaminating
groundwater; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and compatibility with Integrated Pest
Management (http://www.epa.eov/pesticides/ipm/). Biological pesticides and biotechnology often
represent lower risk solutions to pest problems.
Protecting Endangered Species
The EPA is responsible for complying with the ESA. Given approximately 1,200 active ingredients
in more than 17,000 products - many of which have multiple uses - and approximately 1,200 listed
species with diverse biological attributes, habitat requirements, and geographic range, this presents
a great challenge. As part of the EPA's determination of whether a pesticide product may be
registered for a particular use, the agency assesses whether listed endangered or threatened species
or their designated critical habitat may be affected by use of the product. Where risks are identified,
the EPA must work with the FWS and the NMFS in a consultation69 process to ensure these new
or existing pesticide registrations also will meet the ESA standard. The EPA's Endangered Species
Protection Program (ESPP) helps promote the recovery of listed species by determining whether
pesticide use in a certain geographic area may affect any listed species. If limitations on pesticide
use are necessary to protect listed species in that area, the information is related through Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins. The goal of this program is to carry out the agency's responsibilities
under FIFRA in compliance with the ESA, without placing unnecessary burdens on agriculture and
other pesticide users.
Minimizing Environmental Impacts through Outreach and Education
Through public outreach, the agency continues to encourage the use of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) and other practices to maximize the benefits pesticides can yield while minimizing the
impacts on the environment. The agency develops and disseminates brochures, provides education
on potential benefits of IPM, and promotes outreach on the success of IPM to encourage its use.70
To encourage responsible pesticide use that does not endanger the environment, the EPA reaches
out to the public through the Internet and to workers and professional pesticide applicators through
worker training programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA's activities will involve increased efforts on comprehensive risk assessments
to protect the environment. For the 725 cases covering all pesticides registered before October 1,
2007, the EPA has a statutory mandate to make registration review decisions by October 1,
2022. For each case, the steps in this process include, in this order: opening dockets; developing
work plans, completing risk assessments, and making decisions regarding any risk management
measures. It is important to open dockets and develop work plans for as many cases as possible
early in the process so that there is time to complete the risk assessments and make decisions by
the 2022 deadline. The agency planned this ramp down in targets for opening dockets and
69 For additional information, see https://www.epa.gov/endan.gered-species/assessmg-pesticides-un.der-endangered-species-act
70 http://www.epa.gov/pesp/ipniinschools/iniplenientation.html.
252
-------
completing work plans so it could focus its resources on completing risk assessments and making
decisions to meet its statutory deadline by 2022. The EPA anticipates having completed the opening
of dockets in 2017 (completed all 725). There will be zero (0) dockets in FY 2018. In working
towards meeting the October 1, 2022 statutory deadline for registration review, the EPA expects to
issue approximately 60 risk assessments for public comment during FY 2018.
While review of pesticides currently in the marketplace, and implementation of decisions made as
a result of these reviews are a necessary element of meeting the EPA's goals, they are not sufficient.
Attaining risk reduction would be significantly hampered without availability of alternative
products to these pesticides for consumers. Consequently, the success of the Registration program
in ensuring the availability of effective alternative products plays a significant role in meeting the
environmental outcome of improved ecosystem protection. The EPA also will continue to assist
pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and methods of using existing products. The
agency also will continue encouraging the use of IPM tools.
Protection of Endangered Species
Under the ESA, federal agencies must ensure that the "actions" they authorize will not result in
jeopardy to species listed as endangered or threatened by the Services or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. While the EPA authorizes the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides
according to the product labeling, the agency also will do more comprehensive risk assessments for
registration activities that are protecting endangered species. During registration review, the EPA
will support obtaining risk mitigation earlier in the process by encouraging registrants to agree to
changes in uses and applications of a pesticide beneficial to the protection of endangered species
prior to completion of the EPA's consultations with FWS and NMFS. In FY 2018, pesticide
registration reviews are expected to require comprehensive environmental assessments, including
determining potential endangered species impacts. This effort will continue to expand the
program's workload due to the necessity of issuing data call-ins and conducting additional
environmental assessments for pesticides already in the review pipeline. The EPA has a
performance measure that tracks this work: The percent of registration review chemicals with
identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk prior to
consultation with the U.S. FWS and NMFS (jointly the Services).
In FY 2018, in cooperation with the Services and the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the agency will continue to work toward improving compliance with the ESA. To this
end, the agency continues to consider recommendations from the committee of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS') National Research Council regarding scientific and technical issues
related to the methods and assumptions used by the EPA, and the services to carry out their joint
responsibilities under the ESA and FIFRA. The four agencies jointly asked the NAS to identify
approaches to: collect the best available scientific data and information; consider sub-lethal,
indirect and cumulative effects; assess the effects of chemical mixtures and inert ingredients; use
models to assist in analyzing the effects of pesticide use; effectively incorporate uncertainties into
the evaluations; and use geospatial information and datasets in the course of these assessments.
Since receiving the NAS report, the agencies have developed shared scientific approaches and
presented those approaches to stakeholders at a virtual nationwide meeting. During FY 2018, the
EPA and the Services will jointly apply these approaches to some pesticide risk assessments and,
253
-------
if necessary, to consultations. These initial assessments will apply and improve the shared scientific
approaches.
The EPA and the Services also have been collaborating to resolve litigation brought against the
EPA for failure to consult and against the Services for failure to complete consultation. The
settlement agreements will give the EPA and the Services an opportunity to pilot and implement
recommendations from the 2013 NAS report with identified milestones and timelines for
completing work products.
The EPA will continue to impose use limitations through appropriate label statements, referring
pesticide users to EPA-developed Endangered Species Protection Bulletins, which are available on
the Internet via Bulletins Live!11 These bulletins also will, as appropriate, contain maps of pesticide
use limitation areas necessary to ensure protection of listed species and compliance with the ESA.
Any such limitations on a pesticide's use will be enforceable under the misuse provisions of FIFRA.
Bulletins are a critical mechanism for ensuring protection of listed species from pesticide
applications while minimizing the burden on agriculture and other pesticide users by limiting
pesticide use in the smallest geographic area necessary to protect the species. In FY 2018, the EPA
will continue revising and updating Bulletins Live! to provide a more interactive and more
geographically discrete platform for pesticide users to understand the use limitations necessary to
protect endangered or threatened species.
The agency will continue to provide technical support for compliance with the requirements of the
ESA. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue the integration of state-of-the-science models, knowledge
bases, and analytic processes to increase productivity and better address the challenge of potential
risks of specific pesticides to specific species. Interconnection of the various databases within the
program office also will provide improved support to the risk assessment process during
registration review by allowing risk assessors to more easily analyze complex scenarios relative to
endangered species.
Pollinator Protection
Bees play a critical role in ensuring the production of food. The USDA is leading the federal
government's effort to understand the causes of declining pollinator health and identify actions that
also will improve pollinator health. The EPA is part of this effort and is focusing on the potential
role of pesticides. The EPA's emphasis is to ensure that the pesticides used represent acceptable
risks to pollinators and that products are available for commercial bee keepers to manage pests that
impact pollinator health. The EPA is working with pesticide registrants to change pesticide labels
to reduce acute exposure and ensure that pollinators are protected.
The EPA is implementing a new pollinator risk assessment framework to assess the potential effects
that pesticides may have on bees through the registration and registration review programs, in
cooperation with Canada and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In addition, the
EPA is working with several other federal agencies, including USDA and DOI, to increase and
improve pollinator habitat. As a part of these activities, the EPA also will assess the effects of
pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bee and other pollinator health and take action, as
71 http://www.epa.gov/espp/bulletms.htiii.
254
-------
appropriate, to protect pollinators, engage state and Tribal agencies in the development of pollinator
protection plans, and expedite review of registration applications for new products targeting pests
harmful to pollinators. The EPA also is working with seed companies to develop and implement
strategies to reduce the release of pesticide residues during the planting process of treated seed.
Other efforts include working with stakeholders to identify and consolidate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for honey bee health and developing a web page of these BMPs with cooperation
from the National Integrated Pest Management Centers and the USDA. The EPA is providing funds
to land grant universities to conduct research on alternative pest control methods and BMPs that
lower risks to bees while effectively controlling pests.
In 2014, the EPA required changes to pesticide labels for four neonicotinoid insecticides to limit
applications to protect bees, as well as provide users of these products with more precise safety
information about bees, improving and clarifying the pollinator protection requirements for 240
approved pesticide labels. These changes were made to the pesticide labels for imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to require the new
pollinator protection labeling for other outdoor foliar products that are acutely toxic to bees.72
Protection of Water Resources
Reduced concentration of pesticides in water sources is an indication of the effectiveness of the
EPA's risk assessment, management, mitigation, and communication activities. Using sampling
data collected under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment
(NWQA) program for urban watersheds, the EPA will continue to monitor the impact of our
regulatory decisions for three priority chemicals - diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl. In
agricultural watersheds, the program will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions on
azinphos-methyl and chloropyrifos and consider whether any additional action is necessary.73 In
FY 2018, the agency will continue to work with USGS to develop sampling plans and refine
program goals. Water quality is a critical endpoint for measuring exposure and risk to the
environment and a measure of the EPA's ability to reduce exposure from these key pesticides of
concern.
To measure program effectiveness, the EPA tracks reductions of concentrations of these four
organophosphate insecticides that most consistently exceeded the EPA's aquatic life benchmarks
for aquatic ecosystems74 during the last ten years of monitoring by the USGS NWQA program.
The agency will use data from 10 specified sites for urban and 10 specified sites for agricultural
sites from the USGS national monitoring sites in the future to provide consistency in data reporting.
The monitoring sites were selected based on history of monitoring results and anticipated
consistency in reporting from these national sampling sites. The exceedances are calculated based
on the number of exceedances divided by the total number of watersheds. The USGS NAWQA
72 For additional information on EPA's role in pollinator protection, see: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/epa-actions-
protect-pollinators and http://www2.epa.gov/pollin.ator-protection/new-labelmg-neonicotiri.oid-pesticides .
73Gilliom, R.J., et al. 2006. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-
2001. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291, p 171. Available on the Internet at:
http://piibs.iisgs.gov/circ/20Q5/1291/.
74 http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/ecorisk. ders/aauatic life benchmark.htm
255
-------
sites selected are the best long-term source of surface water monitoring data for a large number of
pesticides and their degradates, with consistent QA procedures for both sampling and lab analysis,
low detection limits, and have been used by the program for risk assessment work for over the last
15 years. The most sensitive aquatic benchmarks for the chemicals are posted on the website:
http://www.epa.eov/pesticide-science-and-assessine-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-
pesticide-reeistration.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,292.0 / -18.8 FTE) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Endangered Species Act (ESA).
256
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unvironmcnliil Program A- Miinugcnwiil
s
SU.O'-t.O
S5.02li.tl
(S 1.0-/6.0)
Science & Technology
$427.4
$570.0
$527.0
($43.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,154.9
$6,644.0
$5,555.0
($1,089.0)
Total Workyears
42.0
46.5
46.3
-0.2
Program Project Description:
The primary federal law that governs how the EPA oversees pesticide manufacture, distribution,
and use in the United States is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Originally enacted in 1947, this law has been significantly amended several times, most recently
by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA3). FIFRA requires that the EPA register pesticides based on a finding
that they will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on people and the environment, taking into
account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.
Each time the law has been amended, while Congress has strengthened the safety standards of the
act, it continues to recognize the benefits of pesticides.
This program seeks to realize the value of pesticides that can be used safely to yield many benefits,
including: to generate the nation's abundant and wholesome food supply, to protect the public from
disease-carrying pests, to protect our environment from the introduction of invasive species from
other parts of the world, to kill viruses and bacteria in America's hospitals, and to protect the
nation's homes and schools from invasive insects, rodents, molds, and other unwelcome guests.
Addressing Special Local Needs
FIFRA Section 24(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations give states the authority to issue
their own state-specific registrations under certain conditions, while the EPA is responsible for
overseeing the general program.
States may register a new end use product or an additional use of a federally registered pesticide
product if the following conditions exist:
• A Special Local Need - an existing or imminent pest problem within a state for which the
state lead agency, based on satisfactory supporting information, has determined that an
appropriate federally registered pesticide product is not sufficiently available.
• The additional use is covered by any necessary tolerances (maximum legal residue levels)
or other clearances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
257
-------
• Registration for the same use has not previously been denied, disapproved, suspended, or
canceled by the EPA or voluntarily canceled by the registrant subsequent to issuance of a
notice of intent to cancel because of health or environmental concerns.
• Registration is in accord with the purposes of FIFRA.
These 24(c) registrations become federal registrations in 90 days unless the EPA objects to them.
The EPA's role is to ensure that each 24(c) registration meets the requirements of FIFRA.
Emergency, Quarantine, and Crisis Exemptions
FIFRA Section 18, and the EPA's implementing regulations, authorize the EPA, in the event of an
emergency, such as a severe pest infestation, to allow an unregistered use of a pesticide for a limited
time if the EPA determines that emergency conditions exist which require such an exemption.75
An "Emergency Condition" is an urgent, non-routine situation that requires the use of a
pesticide(s). Emergency exemptions may be requested by any state or federal agency, but typically
come from state lead agricultural agencies. The EPA also must establish any necessary tolerances
to cover pesticide residues in food, if applicable. Tolerances established for emergency exemption
uses are time-limited, corresponding to the time that commodities treated under the exemption
might be found in channels of trade. When needed, the OPP chemistry laboratory evaluates
pesticide residues on certain foods. These real-world residue monitoring data can be used to
accurately assess the risk and determine whether the risk cup would be exceeded.
A second type of emergency exemption is allowed for "public health" emergencies. A state or
federal agency may request a public health emergency exemption to control a pest that will cause
a significant risk to human health.
The third type of exemption, the "Quarantine" exemption, is allowed to control the introduction or
spread of an invasive pest species not previously known to occur in the United States and its
territories.
Finally, when the emergency is so immediate that there is not enough time to go through the normal
review for an exemption and there is an immediate need, following communication with clearance
by the EPA, a state or federal agency may issue a "crisis exemption" allowing the unregistered use
to proceed for up to 15 days. During the consultation before the state or federal agency declares a
crisis, the EPA performs a review to determine whether there are any apparent concerns, and
whether the appropriate safety findings required by FIFRA likely may be made. If the EPA
identifies concerns, the crisis exemption may not be allowed unless those concerns can be resolved.
75 http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/sectioiil8/
258
-------
Meeting Agriculture's Need for Safe, Effective Pest Control Products
With the passage of FQPA, Congress acknowledged the importance of and need for "reduced-risk
pesticides" and supported expedited agency review to help these pesticides reach the market sooner
and replace older and potentially riskier chemicals. The law defines a reduced risk pesticide as one
that "may reasonably be expected to accomplish one or more of the following: (1) reduces pesticide
risks to human health; (2) reduces pesticide risks to non-target organisms; (3) reduces the potential
for contamination of valued, environmental resources, or (4) broadens adoption of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM)76 or makes it more effective." The EPA developed procedures and guidelines
for expedited review of applications for registration or amendments for a reduced risk pesticide.
The agency expanded the reduced risk pesticide program to include consideration of new active
ingredients, new uses of active ingredients already deemed to be reduced risk, and amendments to
all uses deemed to be reduced risk. The EPA gives priority to review of reduced risk pesticides and
works with the regulated community and user groups to refine review and registration procedures.
FIFRA 's Version of "Generic " Pesticides
FIFRA authorizes the EPA to register products that are identical to or substantially similar to
already registered products (known as "me too" products). Applicants for these substantially similar
products may rely on, or "cite" (and offer to pay a fair share for) data already submitted by another
registrant. The entry of these new products into the market can cause price reductions resulting
from new competition and broader access to products. These price declines generate competition
that benefits farmers and other consumers.
"Minor Crops " - Addressing Growers' Needfor Pest Control
The FQPA amendments made special provisions for minor uses of pesticides. Minor uses of
pesticides are defined as uses for which pesticide product sales do not provide sufficient economic
incentive to justify the costs of developing and maintaining its registrations with the EPA. "Minor"
crops include many fruits and vegetables. Minor uses also include use on commercially grown
flowers, trees and shrubs, certain applications to major crops such as wheat or corn where the pest
problem is not widespread, and many public health applications.77
Some minor uses have been lost through lack of registrant support during the reregi strati on process,
resulting in grower concerns that adequate pest control tools will no longer be available for many
minor crops. The agency works closely with the USDA's Inter-Regional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4)78 to generate residue data for tolerances on minor crops in order to minimize the burden of
data generation for minor uses. The EPA and the USD A operate early alert systems to notify
growers when a pesticide use for a minor crop is about to be canceled. The EPA provides advance
public notice of a proposed cancellation to allow time for another registrant to consider maintaining
the pesticide use.
16 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipiii.htiii)
77 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulatiiig/laws/fqpa/fqpa accomplishments.htm
78 http://www.csrees.iisda.gov/iiea/pest/iii focus/pesticides if minor.html)
259
-------
Meeting the Needfor Non-agricultural Pesticides
Farmers are not the only ones who need pesticides. Pest control also is needed in our homes,
schools, and workplaces. Pesticides control pests that spread disease like West Nile Virus, malaria
and rabies, to name a few. They disinfect our swimming pools and sanitize bathrooms; they combat
mold and are essential to sterilize surfaces in hospitals and other health care facilities.
Outreach and Education
The agency will continue to encourage Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which emphasizes
minimizing the use of broad spectrum chemicals and maximizing the use of sanitation, biological
controls, and selective methods of application, and it relies on pesticide users being well-informed
about the pest control options available and how to best use them. It is not enough to have pesticide
products registered to control pest infestations. Pesticide users need to know which pesticides to
use, how to use them, and how to maintain the site, so pests do not return. The Pesticide Program
is invested in outreach and training efforts for people who use pesticides and the public in general.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2018, the EPA will review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides,
and act on other registration requests in accordance with FIFRA and FFDCA standards as well as
PRIA3 timeframes. Many of these actions will be for reduced-risk pesticides, which, once
registered and used by consumers, will increase benefits to society. Working together with the
affected user communities, through IPM and related activities, the agency plans to accelerate the
adoption of these lower-risk products.
The EPA will continue to support implementation of other IPM-related activities. The agency will
engage partners in the development of tools and informational brochures to promote IPM efforts
and to provide guidance to schools, farmers, other partners, and stakeholders.
Similarly, the agency will continue its work-sharing efforts with its international partners. Through
these collaborative activities and resulting international registrations, international trade barriers
will be reduced. When nations with whom we trade accept imported crops treated with newer,
lower-risk pesticides, domestic users can more readily adopt these newer pesticides into their crop
protection programs. Work-sharing efforts also reduce the costs of registration to governments
sharing the expenses.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to prioritize emergency exemptions. The economic benefit of
the Section 18 emergency exemptions program to growers is the avoidance of losses incurred in
the absence of pesticides exempted under FIFRA's emergency exemption provisions.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
260
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,046.0) This reduces funding for pesticide program activities from annual
appropriations with the intent to increase utilization of pesticide user fee collections.
Proposed legislative language accompanying the President's Budget will expand the EPA's
scope of activities that can be funded with user fees.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), §408.
261
-------
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
S IJ(>2.5
si. r:.o
so.o
(Si./~2.il)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S 1.362.5
SI. 172.0
so.o
(SI. 172.0)
Total Workyears
5.0
5.4
0.0
-5.4
Program Project Description:
The Science Policy and Biotechnology program provides scientific and policy expertise,
coordinates the EPA's intra/interagency efforts, and facilitates information-sharing related to core
science policy issues concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals. In addition, the Science Policy and
Biotechnology program provides for independent, external scientific peer review through the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP), a
federal advisory committee and the newly-formed Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals
(SACC).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Statutory requirements
will be absorbed by the pesticides and toxics programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,172.0 / -5.4 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Science Policy and
Biotechnology program. The science advisory committee oversight required by FIFRA and
TSCA will be conducted by the pesticides and toxics program offices.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), §408; Toxic Substances Control Act.
262
-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
263
-------
RCRA: Waste Management
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
Si -J122.H
S 5S.VSft.lt
S-ll.I-lfi.lt
(SI -.H4lt.lt)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$59,933.0
$62,653.0
$41,146.0
($21,507.0)
Total Workyears
315.8
332.7
205.9
-126.8
Program Project Description:
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the EPA sets national standards for
managing hazardous wastes. Approximately 60,000 facilities generate and safely manage
hazardous waste in the United States.79 Eighty percent of the U.S. population lives within 3 miles
of one of these facilities,80 making national standards and procedures for managing hazardous
wastes a necessity.
The Waste Management program safeguards the American people while facilitating commerce by
supporting an effective waste management infrastructure. Cradle-to-grave hazardous waste
management regulations help ensure safe management practices through the entire process of
generation, transportation, recycling, treatment, storage, and final disposal. The program increases
the capacity for proper hazardous waste management in states by providing grant funding and
technical support.
The EPA and its state partners issue, update, maintain, and oversee RCRA controls for
approximately 20,000 hazardous waste units (e.g., incinerators, landfills, and tanks) located at
6,600 treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Just as businesses innovate and grow, the waste
management challenges they face also evolve; this requires new direction and changes in the federal
hazardous waste program through updated regulations, guidance, and other tools. This funding
supports these efforts.
The EPA directly implements the entire RCRA program in Iowa and Alaska and provides
leadership, work-sharing, and support to the states and territories authorized to implement the
permitting program. Additionally, the Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) cleanup and disposal program is implemented under the Waste Management program to
reduce PCB exposure from improper disposal, storage, and spills. The program reviews and
approves PCB cleanup, storage, and disposal activities. This federal authority is not delegated to
state programs. PCBs were banned in 1979, but legacy use and contamination still exists, and can
79 Memorandum, February 18, 2014, from Industrial Economics to the EPA, Re: Analysis to Support Assessment of Economic
Impacts and Benefits under RCRA Programs: Key Scoping Assessment, Initial Findings and Summary of Available Data (Section
1), pages 5-11.
80 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Estimate. 2014. Data collected includes: (1) site information as of the
end of FY 2011 from RCRAInfo; and (2) census data from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
264
-------
still be released into the environment from poorly maintained hazardous waste sites that contain
them.
FY2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the RCRA Waste Management program will:
• Provide hazardous waste technical assistance to regions, states, and tribes regarding the
development and implementation of hazardous waste programs.
• Provide technical and implementation assistance, oversight, and support to the generator
community and to facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste.
• Review and approve PCB cleanup, storage, and disposal activities to reduce exposures,
particularly in sensitive areas like schools and other public spaces. The EPA will prioritize
PCB cleanup approvals and expedite high priority cleanups or address those unaddressed in
a timely fashion.
• Provide technical hazardous waste management assistance to tribes to encourage
sustainable practices and reduce exposure to toxins from hazardous waste.81
• Directly implement the RCRA program in unauthorized states, on Tribal lands, and other
unauthorized portions of state RCRA programs.
• Implement regulations to ensure protective management of coal combustion residuals
(CCR). In response to historic management practices, the agency has promulgated
regulations specifying improved management and disposal practices to ensure people and
ecosystems are protected. The agency will continue to work with our stakeholders through
technical assistance and guidance.
• Implement applicable provisions of the Water Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2016,
which enables states to submit for EPA approval state CCR permit programs. If approved,
the state program would operate in lieu of the federal rules. The agency will work closely
with state partners to develop guidance and other materials needed to fully implement this
law.
• Managing the Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) system, which provides for
the electronic submission of hazardous waste import and export notices. This saves
businesses time and effort and makes shipping hazardous waste across borders more
efficient. Managing hazardous waste imports and exports is a federal responsibility, non-
delegable to states.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
81 Of the 567 federally recognized tribes, as of September 30, 2016,224 have an integrated waste management plan.
265
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$17,840.0 / -126.8 FTE) This streamlines the Waste Management program. The agency
will prioritize work on PCB cleanup and hazardous waste disposal programs, while
reducing support for technical assistance to stakeholders and assistance to tribes on solid
waste management programs.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
§§ 3004, 3005, 3024, 8001; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), § 6.
266
-------
RCRA: Corrective Action
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
Sj'.'tO'.l)
SjO.SOO.t)
SJI.'J-I'.I)
(S -l.VI3.lt)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$37,967.0
$36,860.0
$31,947.0
($4,913.0;
Total Workyears
208.1
205.4
172.0
-33.4
Program Project Description:
To reduce risks from exposure to toxics, the EPA's RCRA Corrective Action program ensures that
contaminated facilities subject to RCRA are cleaned up by the responsible party, returns
contaminated property to productive use, and keeps costs from being transferred to the largely
taxpayer-funded Superfund program. Pursuant to EPA promulgated regulations and administrative
orders under RCRA, the EPA will continue to direct financial assurance funds set aside by members
of the regulated community to ensure that the funds are used to meet regulated entities' obligations
and to protect taxpayers from having to pay the bill. Approximately 108 million Americans live
within three miles of a RCRA corrective action facility (roughly 35 percent of the U.S.
population),82 and the total area covered by these corrective action sites is approximately 18 million
acres.
The EPA works in close partnership with 44 states and one territory authorized to implement the
Corrective Action program84 to ensure that cleanups are protective of human health and the
environment. The Corrective Action program allows for the return of properties to beneficial use,
which benefits the surrounding communities, reduces liabilities for facilities, and allows facilities
to redirect resources to productive activites. The agency provides program direction, leadership,
and support to its state partners. This includes specialized technical and program expertise, policy
development for effective program management, national program priority setting, measurement
and tracking, training and technical tools, and data collection/management/documentation. In
addition, through worksharing, the agency serves as lead or support for a significant number of
complex and challenging cleanups in both non-authorized and authorized states.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The program focuses its resources on cleaning up 3,779 priority contaminated facilities (the "2020
Baseline"), which includes highly contaminated and technically challenging sites. Currently, only
31 percent of the 2020 Baseline facilities have completed final and permanent cleanups, leaving
82 U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Response Estimate. Data collected includes: (1) site information as of the end of FY
2013 from RCRAInfo; and (2) census data from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey.
https://www.epa.gov/aboiitepa/popiilation-siirroun.dmg-3720-rcra-coiTective-action-sites
83 As compiled by RCRAInfo.
84 State implementation of the Corrective Action program is funded through the STAG Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance and matching state contributions.
267
-------
over 2,600 facilities still needing oversight and technical support to reach final site-wide cleanup
objectives. Additionally, the 2020 Baseline is a subset of approximately six thousand facilities with
potential corrective action obligations under the RCRA. The program's goals are to control human
exposures, control migration of contaminated groundwater, complete final cleanups for the 2020
Baseline facilities, and assess the non-2020 Baseline facilities.
In FY 2018, the EPA will:
• Prioritize and focus resources on those facilities that present the highest risk to human health
and the environment and implement actions to end or reduce these threats.
• Provide technical assistance to authorized states in the areas of site characterization,
sampling, remedy selection, and long-term stewardship at 2020 Baseline facilities.
• Prioritize and focus the program on completing site investigations to identify threats,
establish interim remedies to reduce and eliminate exposure, and select and construct safe,
effective long-term remedies that maintain the economic viability of the operating facility.
• For high priority facilities, perform cleanup work under work-sharing agreements to assist
with facilities that have complex issues85 or special tasks (e.g, ecological risk assessments).
• Continue to improve cleanup approaches and share best practices and cleanup innovations,
such as the use of the RCRA FIRST86 toolbox developed to speed up and improve cleanups
by eliminating inefficiencies in key procedural steps.
• Contribute to the maintenance of RCRAInfo, which is the the primary data system that
many states rely upon to manage their RCRA permitting, corrective action, and hazardous
waste generator programs. RCRAInfo receives data from hazardous waste handlers for the
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, which is mandated by RCRA Sections
3002 and 3004. The last biennial report showed there were 26,284 generators of over 33
million tons of hazardous waste. As the RCRA Subtitle C system of record, RCRAInfo
provides the only national-level RCRA hazardous waste data and statistics to track the
environmental progress of approximately 20,000 hazardous waste units at 6,600 facilities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,913.0 / -33.4 FTE) This reduction modifies the timeline for initiating cleanups and
ongoing cleanups. The EPA will prioritize resources on those facilities that present the
highest risk to human health and the environment.
85 For example, vapor intrusion, wetlands contamination, or extensive groundwater issues.
86 For more information, visit: https: //www, epa. gov/hw/toolbox-corrective-action-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-
facilities-investigation-remedv.
268
-------
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
§§ 3004, 3005, 8001.
269
-------
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
SH.5IO.H
SH.H'J2.0
so.o
(ss.sj:./))
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,510.8
$8,832.0
$0.0
($8,832.0;
Total Workyears
46.9
51.0
0.0
-51.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established the EPA's role as a federal
leader in the conservation and recovery of material. Charged to provide federal agencies, state, local
governments, and industries with technical assistance on solid waste management, resource
recovery, and resource conservation, the EPA established the RCRA Waste Minimization program.
Through the RCRA Waste Minimization program, the EPA collects, maintains, and shares
information on the market potential of energy and materials recovered from solid waste, including
information regarding the savings potential of conserving resources that go into the waste stream.87
As a result, industries are able to more efficiently conserve virgin resources, including natural
resources, fossil fuels, minerals, and precious metals.
Efforts in Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) seeks to efficiently and effectively minimize
environmental impacts throughout the full life cycle of materials—from raw materials extraction,
through transportation, processing, manufacturing, and use, as well as reuse, recycling, and
disposal. This approach highlights ways to reduce waste throughout the life-cycle and to use waste
materials as commodities to grow industries and associated jobs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. State and local entities or
industry groups may elect to continue work to reuse and recycle materials.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,832.0 / -51.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the RCRA Waste Minimization and
Recycling program in FY 2018. The EPA will focus on core environmental work.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
87 For additional information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/smm.
270
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
271
-------
Endocrine Disruptors
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unvironmcnliil Program A- Miinugcnwiil
so.nJx-f
S~ 530.0
so.o
(S
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S6.035.4
S7.5.W.0
so.o
(S7.539.0)
Total Workyears
8.9
8.9
0.0
-8.9
Program Project Description:
The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) was established in 1996 under authorities
contained in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) amendments. Current activities within the EDSP include transitioning to the use of high
throughput screening (HTS) and computational toxicology (CompTox) tools to screen thousands
of chemicals for endocrine activity, establishing policies and procedures for screening and testing,
and evaluating data to ensure chemical safety by protecting public health and the environment from
endocrine disrupting chemicals.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will absorb its
remaining functions within the pesticides program using the currently available tiered testing
battery.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7,539.0 / -8.9 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Endocrine Disruptors program.
The ongoing functions of the program can be absorbed into the pesticides program.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), § 408(p); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), §
1457.
272
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S
S 5K.443M
Sfo.OJO.O
N f>.5V.i.O
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S56.030.4
S5 8,443.0
S6.\036.0
S6.593.0
Total Workyears
221.6
238.7
240.7
2.0
Program Project Description:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the EPA has significant continuing and new
responsibilities for ensuring that chemicals in or entering commerce do not present unreasonable
risks to human health or the environment. These responsibilities are executed by the agency through
the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction (CRRR) Program, which works to ensure the safety of:
• Existing chemicals (those already in use when TSCA was first enacted in 1976 and those
which have gone through review by the TSCA New Chemicals Program since),88 by
obtaining and evaluating chemical data and by taking regulatory and/or non-regulatory
action, where appropriate, to prevent any unreasonable risk posed by their use; and
• New chemicals by reviewing and taking action on new chemical notices submitted by
industry, including Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs), to ensure that no unreasonable risk
will be posed by such chemicals upon their entry into U.S. commerce.
The new law, signed on June 22, 2016, substantially amended TSCA by providing the EPA with
significant new authorities and obligations:
• Clear and enforceable deadlines. The EPA is now required to systematically prioritize and
evaluate existing chemicals on a specific schedule, complete specified numbers of chemical
risk evaluations within specified time frames, complete risk management actions within
specified time frames where warranted by the findings of the evaluations, and review and
make determinations on Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims within specified
time frames, among other actions.
• Requirement to address risks. The EPA is required to take timely action to address identified
risks by imposing requirements specified in Section 6(a) which can include: prohibiting,
restricting, or modifying the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce or
88 These include certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals known generally as "legacy chemicals" (e.g., PCBs, mercury), which were
previously covered in a separate Chemical Risk Management (CRM) budget justification. The CRM program area was combined
with Chemical Risk Review and Reduction effective FY 2015.
273
-------
commercial use and modifying the labeling, recordkeeping, and other restrictions so that
the chemical will no longer present an unreasonable risk.
• Increased transparency of chemical data while protecting legitimate confidential
information. The EPA is required to review all chemical identity Confidential Business
Information (CBI) claims for certain types of submissions and for 25% of most other CBI
claims within 90 days.
• Requirement that the EPA make an affirmative determination of safety on every new
chemical. Previously, new chemicals were reviewed in 90 days and were allowed to enter
the marketplace unless the EPA made a specific determination that regulatory controls were
needed. Now, continuing with a mandated 90-day timeframe, an affirmative determination
must be made by the EPA that a new chemical substance will present, may present, or is
not likely to present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment; or that the
available information is insufficient to enable the agency to make any of the above
determinations. Unless the EPA determines that the substance is not likely to present
unreasonable risk, the agency must issue an order or rule that imposes conditions sufficient
to protect against any such unreasonable risk before the chemical can enter the marketplace.
In addition, the Act provided a sustainable source of funding for the EPA to carry out its new
responsibilities. The agency will now be able to collect user fees from chemical manufacturers and
processers to defray up to 25% of its costs for administering certain sections89 of TSCA, as
amended, subject to an overall cap of $25 million a year in effect for the first three years after
enactment.90 Fee levels may be adjusted on a recurring three-year basis for inflation and to ensure
that fees are sufficient to defray up to 25% of the costs to carry out certain sections of TSCA, as
amended.
A rule to implement the fee collection provisions of the new law is currently under development.
The statute allows the EPA to consider collecting fees from chemical manufacturers (including
importers) and processors who:
• Are required to submit test data (TSCA Section 4);
• Submit notification of or information related to intent to manufacture a new chemical or
significant new use of a chemical (TSCA Section 5);
• Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is subject to a risk evaluation (TSCA
Section 6); or
• Request that the EPA conduct risk evaluation on an existing chemical (TSCA Section 6),
subject to the agency's approval of the request.
The agency expects to finalize this rule and collect fees beginning in February 2018.
89 The costs of implementing TSCA (as amended) Sections 4, 5, and 6 are defrayable up to the statutory caps, as are the costs of
collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and protecting from disclosure, as appropriate, chemical information
under Section 14.
90 The authority to assess fees is conditioned on appropriations for the CRRR Program, excluding fees, being held at least equal to
the amount appropriated for FY 2014.
274
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the resources requested by the EPA will support continued implementation of the new
TSCA law, with emphasis on meeting the critical mandates and timelines applicable to chemical
testing, pre-market review of new chemicals, chemical risk evaluation and management, review
and determinations on incoming CBI claims and other statutory priorities. At the same time, the
agency will continue to carry out ongoing base program activities.
The agency already has made considerable progress in carrying out work activities required to be
completed within one year after enactment of the new law. Key achievements include: the
identification of the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated under the new law for potential risks to
human health and the environment, identification of five mercury compounds to be subject to
export restrictions, completion of proposals for several framework rules needed to implement
provisions of the law (Inventory Rule, Risk Evaluation Rule, Prioritization Process Rule), and
determinations have been made under the new law on 565 New Chemical notifications from
enactment of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) in June 2016 through February 2017.91
Future implementation activities will expand on the considerable progress already made.
Primary TSCA Implementation Activities - TSCA Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 14
The new law, amending several elements of TSCA, provided mandates and authorities to the EPA
for implementation responsibilities in the following primary areas: mandatory requirement for the
EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines; new risk-based safety
standard; new requirement that the EPA must make an affirmative finding on the safety of a new
chemical or significant new use of an existing chemical before it is allowed into the marketplace;
and increased public transparency for chemical information. This section describes activities
associated with these primary mandates and authorities.
The EPA is responsible for reviewing all new chemical submissions to determine whether the
chemicals may pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment if they were to enter
U.S. commerce, and to take steps, where needed, to prevent such risks. Each year, the EPA assesses
and manages, as necessary, the potential risks from approximately 1,000 new chemicals, including
nanoscale materials and products of biotechnology, prior to their entry into the marketplace.
The law's new requirements resulted in changes to the new chemical review process. The new law
requires that an affirmative determination be made by the EPA on whether a new chemical
substance will present, may present, or is not likely to present an unreasonable risk (or that available
information is insufficient to enable any of these determinations to be made) before the chemical
substance can proceed to the marketplace. Since enactment, the program has been developing and
implementing a process for administering the "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" finding
(including new documentation and publication requirements), and administering the provision of
the new law which requires that EPA make an affirmative determination for both intended and
reasonably foreseen uses of new chemicals as well as the new finding of "insufficient information
to make a reasoned evaluation." As a result, the workload involved in new chemical review has
increased. In FY 2018, the agency expects to review over 1,000 new chemical submissions, take
91 https://www.epa.gov/assessinE-and-manaEinE-chemicals-iinder-tsca/frank-r-laiitenberE-chemical-safetv-21st-centiirv-act-5
275
-------
appropriate testing and risk management actions, and make affirmative determinations. The
program also will evaluate the data submitted under requirements of existing Section 5 Consent
Orders and address submitted Notices of Commencement (NOCs) when a new chemical is about
to enter commerce. In FY 2018, the agency will continue to effectuate improvements to internal
data and tracking systems to address the new mandates under TSCA as amended.
Under TSCA Section 6, as amended, the EPA is required to maintain an ambitious schedule for
initiating and completing chemical risk evaluations of existing chemicals and, where risks are
identified, for initiating and completing regulatory actions to address those risks.
(a) Risk Evaluations: On December 19, 2016, the EPA identified the first 10 chemicals that will
undergo risk evaluation under the new law (Designation of Ten Chemical Substances for Initial
Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 81 FR 91927), triggering a statutory
deadline to issue documents identifying the scope of those evaluations within six months and
to complete the risk evaluations within three years. In FY 2018, the agency will be working to
advance these risk evaluations through the draft, peer review/public comment, and final stages,
with a goal of completion no later than December 2019.
For the EPA-initiated risk evaluations beyond the first 10 chemicals noted above, the EPA must
establish and implement a risk-based prioritization process to determine which chemicals will
be evaluated, identifying them as either "high" or "low" priority substances as set forth in TSCA
Section 6(b)(1)(A). A high priority designation is required when the EPA determines, without
consideration of cost or other non-risk factors, that the chemical may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment due to potential hazard and a route of exposure,
including to susceptible subpopulations [TSCA Section 6(b)(1)(B)], High priority designation
triggers a requirement that the EPA conduct a risk evaluation to determine whether a chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulations [TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(F)], The statute also expands the
scope of the EPA's risk evaluations to include all conditions of use of the chemical intended,
known, or reasonably foreseen and requires that they be completed within 3 years (with a
possibility of 6-month extension) [TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(G)],
The EPA is required to begin a risk evaluation for another chemical each time a risk evaluation
is completed such that the EPA maintains the pace of 20 EPA-initiated risk evaluations
underway from the end of calendar year 2019 forward [TSCA Section 6(b)(2)], In FY 2018, the
agency plans to commence the process for identifying an additional 10 chemicals for which risk
evaluation will be initiated during 2018-2019, in order to ramp up to having twenty risk
evaluations underway by the end of 2019. The agency expects to initiate up to 5 new risk
evaluations by the end of FY 2018 to begin to build the base to have 20 EPA-initiated risk
evaluations underway by the end of 2019. The law also directs the agency to designate at least
20 chemicals as low-priority substances by the end of calendar year 2019. In FY 2018, the
agency intends to commence the process for identifying these low-priority substances.
The law includes provisions allowing manufacturers to request the EPA to conduct evaluations
of specific chemicals. The EPA may undertake manufacturer-requested risk evaluations that
276
-------
meet the agency's acceptance criteria at levels up to 50% of the number of the EPA-initiated
evaluations underway. Manufacturers requesting evaluations of chemicals that are on the TSCA
Work Plan must pay fees defraying 50% of the agency's costs for conducting those evaluations.
Manufacturers requesting evaluations of chemicals that are not on the TSCA Work Plan must
pay fees covering 100% of the agency's costs for conducting those evaluations.
(b) Risk Reduction Actions: When unreasonable risks are identified through the risk evaluations,
the EPA must finalize risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk within two
years, or up to four years if an extension is needed. Costs and availability of alternatives will
be considered when determining appropriate action to address risks. Implementation must begin
as quickly as possible, but no later than five years after the final regulation in the case of bans
and phase-outs of chemicals.
TSCA section 6(h) establishes a fast process to address certain PBT chemicals on the 2014
TSCA Work Plan. For these chemicals, unless a manufacturer requests that they undergo a risk
evaluation, a risk evaluation is not required, and action to reduce exposure to the extent
practicable must be proposed no later than three years after enactment of the Lautenberg
amendments (by June 2019) and finalized 18 months later. The EPA determined that seven
chemicals met the PBT criteria set forth in the new law and subsequently received a request
that two be evaluated under TSCA Section 6. The EPA has begun section 6 exposure reduction
work on the remaining five PBT chemicals.
In FY 2018, the EPA plans to continue to consider comments received for two proposed Section
6(a) rules to address risks identified in chemical assessments, for specific uses of
trichloroethylene (TCE) (spot cleaning and aerosol degreasing, vapor degreasing) and for
methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidine (NMP) use in paint removers, completed prior to
enactment of the TSCA amendments, as authorized by Section 26(1).
The agency receives and analyzes Substantial Risk Notifications submitted by industry pursuant to
Section 8(e), which requires the EPA to be notified immediately when a company learns that a
substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. The EPA
may use the information it receives in 8(e) notices in determining whether to take further action.
TSCA Section 4 authorizes the EPA to require testing of a chemical substance or mixture by
manufacturers (including importers). The 2016 TSCA amendments provided new test order and
consent agreement authorities which are designed to expedite the agency's collection of testing
information for prioritizing and conducting chemical risk evaluations for new and existing
chemicals. In FY 2018, the EPA may utilize these authorities to require testing on approximately
12 chemicals in connection with the prioritization and risk evaluation processes, where such testing
is needed. The agency will continue to review test data submitted from prior test rules and
enforceable consent agreements. As in past years, the EPA will make use of Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) data in prioritizing chemicals for collection of testing information and evaluation
of potential risks.
277
-------
The amendments to TSCA also promote the use of non-animal alternative testing methodologies.
The agency will publish an Alternative Testing Methods Strategy by June 2018, two years after the
date of enactment, as required by the new law.
In addition, in FY 2018, the EPA will continue to issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for
existing chemicals, where applicable. This will be a priority for certain uses no longer ongoing that
are identified through the scoping activities conducted as part of the risk evaluations for the first 10
priority chemicals. The agency has the authority to monitor and control significant new uses of
existing chemical substances where other uses are no longer ongoing. With a notification of a new
use, the agency initiates an evaluation focusing on the health and environmental effects of the
substance's significant new use.
The TSCA amendments establish new substantiation requirements for certain types of
confidentiality (CBI) claims from submitters, require the EPA to review and make determinations
on most new CBI claims for the identity of chemicals and a subset of other types of CBI claims,
direct the EPA to develop policies and procedures for sharing TSCA CBI with states, tribes, health
and medical professionals, first responders, and others; require the EPA to review CBI claims for
chemical identity relating to active chemical substances in commerce to determine if they are still
warranted; and direct the EPA to establish guidance for structurally descriptive generic names that
must be provided when specific chemical identity is claimed as CBI. In addition, any CBI claim
made for a chemical identity by manufacturers or processors during reporting to establish the active
TSCA Inventory must be reviewed and determinations made no later than five years after the
establishment of the active inventory listing. The current Inventory has over 17,000 chemicals on
the confidential portion. In order to comply with these new provisions, the EPA is developing new
or enhanced information systems to accommodate tracking of CBI reviews and changes to
electronic reporting applications.
Under the amendments to TSCA, the EPA is required to designate chemical substances on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory as either "active" or "inactive" in U.S. commerce. To
facilitate this, the EPA is required to promulgate a rule, by one year after enactment, requiring
industry to report chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured (including
any that were imported) for non-exempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period prior
to enactment. Reporting is expected to occur during the last quarter of FY 2017 and the first quarter
of FY 2018 for manufacturers, and up to the first half of FY 2018 for processors. The EPA will use
notices received to identify reported substances as active on the TSCA Inventory. Substances for
which no notices are received will be identified as inactive on the Inventory. The EPA expects to
publish the first TSCA Inventory with active and inactive designations in the fourth quarter of FY
2018.
The law also requires both manufacturers and processors to notify the EPA in the future when they
anticipate re-introducing into U.S. commerce substances listed as inactive on the TSCA Inventory.
This future reporting will commence after the publication of the TSCA Inventory in the fourth
quarter of FY 2018.
278
-------
Other TSCA Mandates and Activities
In April 2017, as required under the new law, the EPA published, in the Federal Register, an
inventory of supply, use, and trade of mercury and mercury compounds in the U.S., to be updated
every three years. By June 2018, the agency must promulgate a rule establishing reporting
requirements for persons who manufacture or import mercury and mercury-added products, or
intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process. In FY 2018, the EPA will develop an
electronic reporting interface and database within CDX, and activities and material needed for
outreach to instruct potentially affected stakeholders on how to report required information.
The Mercury Export Ban Act prohibits the export of certain specific mercury compounds, the
TSCA 2016 amendments direct the EPA to publish a list of additional mercury compounds that
will be subject to export bans. The agency completed this step in 2016. Every five years, the agency
also must submit a report to Congress addressing any continuing export of those mercury
compounds, with recommendations as to whether further regulation is warranted.
Section 21 of TSCA authorizes citizen petitions for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule
promulgated under TSCA Sections 4 (rules requiring chemical testing), 6 (rules imposing risk
mitigation controls on chemicals), 8 (rules requiring submission of information), 5 (or orders under
Section 4 or 5). Since September 2007, 20 citizen petitions have been filed with the EPA under this
authority. The agency must grant or deny a Section 21 petition within 90 days; if the EPA grants a
petition, the requested action must be initiated in a timely fashion.
Other Business Lines in Support of TSCA Implementation
o Continuing enhancement of the TSCA Chemical Information System (CIS) to reduce manual
handling of data, increase accessibility of data relevant to chemical assessments, and expedite
review of chemicals;
o Continuing integration of TSCA information management, e-Reporting and public access
systems with the agency's E-Enterprise business strategy, leveraging the E-Enterprise portal to
provide better customer service for external users;
o Developing new tools for hazard and exposure identification assessment and characterization,
while improving existing tools to better assess risks from both new and existing chemicals; and
o Maintaining and enhancing the functionality of ChemView and expanding the information it
makes available to the public to include newly completed chemical assessments, as well as
other new data reported to the EPA under TSCA (e.g., Section 5 Premanufacture Notices
(PMNs), Section 12(b) data, and Section 8 (d), 8(e), and 8(c) submissions).
In FY 2018, the agency will continue implementation of required TSCA activities not affected by
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amendment. These activities
include:
279
-------
o Implementing regulations under the TSCA Title VI Formaldehyde Standards for Composite
Wood Products Act (Public Law 111-199). Title VI establishes national emission standards for
formaldehyde in new composite wood products; 92
o Continuing to implement the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA);93 and providing responses to
any requests for exemption from applicable export prohibitions. Continuing to carry out work
necessary to support compliance with the Minimata Treaty on Mercury, to which the U.S. is a
party.
o Providing firm and individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint
abatement and renovation and repair efforts, as well as provide for operation and maintenance
of the online database (FLPP)94 that supports the processing of applications for training
providers, firms, and individuals.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,601.0 / -53.6 FTE) This shifts funding for 53.6 FTE from annual appropriations to new
TSCA fee collections. Fee collections are expected to begin in quarter two of FY 2018.
• (+53.6 FTE) This shifts 53.6 FTE to new TSCA fee collections from annual appropriations.
• (+$14,364.0) This provides funding to support implementation of new responsibilities
required by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
• (+$830.0 / +2.0 FTE) This provides funding for firm and individual certifications for safe
work practices for lead-based paint abatement and renovation and repair efforts, as well as
provides for operation and maintenance of the online database (FLPP) that supports the
processing of applications for training providers, firms, and individuals.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Sections 2-30, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (enacted June 2016).
92 See http://www2.epa.gov/formaldehvde/formaldehvde-emission-standards-composite-wood-prodiicts
93 MEBA prohibits the export of elemental mercury as of January 1, 2013, among other requirements for the EPA, DOE, and other
federal agencies.
94 https://ssoprod.epa.gov/sso/isp/flppLogm.isp
280
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S 1I.VX2.-I
S 13.11x0
so.o
(SI 3.1l.\0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 1,982.4
SI 3.115.0
so.o
(SI 3 J 15.0)
Total Workyears
53.1
58.1
0.0
-58.1
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prevention (P2) program is a tool for advancing environmental stewardship and
sustainability by federal, state, and Tribal governments; businesses; communities and individuals.
The P2 program seeks to alleviate environmental problems by achieving reductions in the
generation of hazardous releases to air, water, and land; reductions in the use of hazardous
materials; reductions in the generation of greenhouse gases; and reductions in the use of water. The
P2 program also helps businesses and others reduce costs as a result of implementing these
preventative approaches.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Based on previous
investments in P2 solutions made under this program/project, partners are expected to be able to
continue to share best practices and seek additional pollution prevention solutions.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$13,115.0 / -58.1 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Pollution Prevention program.
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), §§ 6602-6610; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
§10.
281
-------
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S 13.1)51.2
S l.\25(U)
so.o
(SJJ.250.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,051.2
$13,250.0
$0.0
($13,250.0;
Total Workyears
68.9
72.8
0.0
-72.8
Program Project Description:
The EPA is working to reduce the number of children with blood lead levels of five micrograms
per deciliter or higher through multiple programs.95 The Lead Risk Reduction program has worked
to reduce the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and non-low-income
children.96
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Lead paint certifications
will continue under the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program. Other forms of lead
exposure are addressed through other targeted programs, such as lead pipe replacement with the
SRFs.
The EPA will continue to provide firm and individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-
based paint abatement and renovation and repair efforts, as well as provide for operation and
maintenance of the online database (FLPP) that supports the processing of applications for training
providers, firms, and individuals, through the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$13,250.0 / -72.8 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Lead Risk Reduction program.
Firm and individual certifications for safe work practices for lead-based paint abatement
and renovation and repair efforts will be funded through the Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction program.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), §§ 401-412.
95 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J.Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, D.A.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, D.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W.
(2002). The prevalence of lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606
96 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables,
(September 2012). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http: //www, cdc. go v/expo surereport/
282
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
283
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S 1IM.U
S H.2-XD
S >.(>12.1)
(S >.(>(>1.0)
linking I 'ndorgroimd Storage Tanks
S9,159.3
S9 ??? 0
S6,364.0
(S2,858.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$20,242.7
$20,495.0
$11,976.0
($8,519.0)
Total Workyears
100.6
108.1
68.8
-39.3
Program Project Description:
Releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks (UST) can contaminate groundwater, the
drinking water source for many Americans. Environmental Program and Management (EPM)
resources in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) /Underground Storage Tank (UST)
program help prevent releases by providing states97 and tribes with technical assistance training,
and guidance.
The EPA partners with tribes to maintain information on Tribal USTs and is the primary
implementer of the UST program in Indian country. With few exceptions, tribes do not have
independent UST program resources. This funding supports direct implementation of UST program
in Indian country.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will:
• Implement a targeted UST Tribal program, including inspections, enforcement, compliance
assistance, and data management.
• Within available resources, provide technical assistance, compliance help, and expert
consultation to state, Tribal, and other agency partners on both policy and technical matters.
This support strives to strengthen our network of federal, state, Tribal, and local partners
(specifically communities and people living and working near UST sites) and assists
implementation of the UST regulations.
• Provide guidance, training and assistance to the regulated community to improve
understanding and compliance.
• Work with states and tribes regarding UST compatibility with alternative fuels. Work in
this area is important given the national growth in biofuels and other emerging fuels, and
97 States as referenced here also include the District of Columbia and five territories as described in the definition of state in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
284
-------
the significant findings regarding the increasing prevalence of corrosion of UST system
equipment containing ethanol or diesel fuels.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,661.0 / -27.2 FTE) This change reflects a reduced workload due to the proposed
elimination of the LUST Prevention and the Categorical Grant Underground Storage Tanks
programs. With remaining resources, the program will continue to directly implement a
targeted compliance and release prevention program in Indian country and work with any
state partners who choose to maintain an UST program after the elimination of the federal
grant funds.
Statutory Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 8001, 9001-9011.
285
-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
286
-------
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S25.ii(>2.3
'2.0
so.o
(S2(t.(t'2.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$25,862.3
$26,672.0
$0.0
($26,672.0;
Total Workyears
38.8
43.6
0.0
-43.6
Program Project Description:
The National Estuary Program (NEP)/Coastal Waterways program works to restore the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of estuaries of national significance and coastal watersheds to
protect and restore water quality, habitat, and living resources.98
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$26,672.0 / -43.6 FTE) This funding change eliminates the National Estuary
Program/Coastal Waterways program. The EPA will encourage states to continue this work
and continue to implement conservation management plans.
Statutory Authority:
Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008; Clean Water Act, Section 320; Estuaries and
Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection and Restoration Act of 1990; North American Wetlands
Conservation Act.
98 For more information, visit https://www.epa. gov/nep.
287
-------
Wetlands
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
S 2U)(>X>
S2 l.D2xD
SIXJIxl)
(S 2.VHUI)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$21,065.5
$21,025.0
$18,115.0
($2,910.0;
Total Workyears
136.4
137.3
115.0
-22.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Wetlands program has two primary components: the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404 regulatory program and the state and Tribal development program. Major activities of the
program include improving management and public understanding of wetland programs and legal
requirements; reviewing Section 404 permit applications submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or authorized states; and assisting in the development of state and Tribal
wetland protection programs under the CWA.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will work with states and tribes to target the Wetlands Protection program funds to core
statutory requirements while providing states and tribes with flexibility to best address their
particular priorities.
Clean Water Act Section 404:
USACE is responsible for managing the day-to-day permit processes nationwide under Section
404 of the CWA. The EPA is statutorily required to provide input to the USACE as it develops
proposed permits. The EPA and USACE will work together to evaluate options for improving
efficiencies in federal CWA permitting that could help reduce potential costs and delays, increase
consistency and predictability, and improve protection of public health and the environment.
In FY 2018, the EPA also will conduct activities pursuant to responsibilities as a member of the
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council authorized under the RESTORE Act.
Build State and Tribal Wetlands Program:
In addition, the EPA will continue to work with states and tribes interested in assuming
administration of the CWA Section 404 program. The EPA will continue to administer Wetland
Program Development Grants in support of state and Tribal wetland programs, with a focus on
working more efficiently with states and tribes to achieve specific program development
outcomes"
99 For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ or http://www.cfda.gov.
288
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,910.0 / -22.3 FTE) This streamlines the Wetlands program. The EPA will work with
states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to address
particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act, § 404.
289
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
290
-------
Beach / Fish Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SI. "<).S
SI.'J'S.O
so.o
(SI.'J'S.O)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI .779.8
SI .978.0
so.o
(SI .978.0)
Total Workyears
3.2
3.8
0.0
-3.8
Program Project Description:
The Fish component of the Beach/Fish Program provides up-to-date science, guidance, technical
assistance, and nationwide information to state, Tribal, and federal agencies on the human health
risks associated with eating locally caught fish with contaminants at levels of concern.
The Beach component of the Beach/Fish Program provides up-to-date science, guidance, technical
assistance, and nationwide information to state, Tribal, and federal agencies on the human health
risks of swimming in pathogen contaminated waters.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The agency will encourage
states to continue this work within ongoing core programs.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,978.0 / -3.8 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Beach/Fish Program, which is a
mature, well-established program that can continue to be implemented at the local level.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act, § 104.
291
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen 1
s'joj-il.n
ssn.o-i-U)
(S
Science & Technology
$3,975.8
$3,512.0
$3,657.0
$145.u
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$100,348.0
$99,853.0
$83,701.0
($16,152.0)
Total Workyears
511.4
522.7
443.3
-79.4
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Drinking Water Program is based on a multiple-barrier and source-to-tap approach to
protecting public health from contaminants in drinking water. The EPA protects public health
through: (1) source water assessment and protection programs; (2) promulgation of new or revised,
scientifically sound National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs); (3) training,
technical assistance, and financial assistance programs to enhance public water system capacity to
comply with existing and new regulations; (4) underground injection control (UIC) programs; (5)
supporting implementation of NPDWRs by state and Tribal drinking water programs through
regulatory, non-regulatory, and voluntary programs and policies; and (6) providing states and tribes
with resources and tools to support the financing of water infrastructure improvements.100
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Safe drinking water is critical for protecting human health and the economic vitality of the nation.
Approximately 320 million Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by public water
systems (PWSs) that are subject to national drinking water standards.101 In FY 2018, the EPA will
continue its core mission to protect the public from contaminants in drinking water by: (1)
developing new and revising existing drinking water standards; (2) supporting states, tribes, and
water systems in implementing standards; (3) enabling financing of infrastructure projects while
promoting sustainable management of drinking water systems; and (4) implementing the
underground injection control (UIC) program.
In FY 2016, 91 percent of the population served by Community Water Systems (CWSs) received
drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking water standards. Ongoing compliance
challenges include violations related to the Total Coliform Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule, the
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and the Nitrates regulation.
100 For more information, please see https://www.epa.gov/groimd-water-aiid-drinkmg-water and https://www.cfda.gov
101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwlsfed/mdex.cfni.
292
-------
Water Infrastructure
With the aging of the nation's critical water infrastructure and a growing need for investment, the
drinking water and wastewater sectors face a significant challenge to maintain and advance the
achievements attained in protecting public health and the environment. The EPA's water and
wastewater sustainability efforts are designed to promote more effective management of water
systems to continuously improve their performance and achieve long-term sustainability.
In addition, the EPA's FY 2018 budget includes resources for continued operation of the Water
Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center to help communities across the country improve their
wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater systems, particularly through innovative financing and
building resiliency. These investments are designed to enhance system capacity and ultimately
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of available water infrastructure funding. The FY 2018
budget also continues to provide funding for the Environmental Finance Centers which deliver
financial outreach services, such as technical assistance, training, expert advice, and full cost
pricing analysis to states, local communities, and small businesses.
The EPA will continue to support financing and construction of drinking water infrastructure and
encourage public water systems to adopt sustainable management practices by doing the following:
• Provide states with funds, through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
capitalization grants, for low-interest loans to assist utilities with financing drinking water
infrastructure needs and to support utility compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) standards;
• Encourage states to consider using the set-asides in the DWSRF to build water system
technical and managerial capacity;
• Provide effective oversight of the DWSRF funds;
• Advise states on maintaining their capacity development and operator certification
programs to support compliance by public water systems with the SDWA and to enable
water systems, especially small systems, to meet statutory prerequisites for receiving
infrastructure financing; and
• Encourage states to develop state-centric tools, in lieu of national tools, to assist water
systems with capacity development.
Drinking Water Implementation
In FY 2018, the agency will continue to work with states to implement requirements for all
NPDWRs to ensure that systems install, operate, and maintain appropriate levels of treatment and
effectively manage their distribution systems. In particular, the EPA will continue to focus on
working with states to optimize corrosion control treatment to minimize exposure to lead. The EPA
also will continue to require states to report violations data at all public water systems for all rules,
including requirements to protect against Cryptosporidium, to control disinfection byproducts, and
to implement the Revised Total Coliform Rule.
While most small systems consistently provide safe and reliable drinking water to their customers,
many small systems face challenges with aging infrastructure, complying with regulatory
293
-------
requirements, workforce shortages and high staff turnover, increasing costs, and declining rate
bases. In FY 2016, small community water system violations made up 94 percent of overall
violations;102 however, in Indian Country, only 88 percent of the population served by CWSs
received drinking water that met all applicable health-based standards. The EPA will continue to
focus on small systems by strengthening and targeting financial assistance, in coordination with
state infrastructure programs, to support rehabilitation of the nation's infrastructure. The agency
also will look for ways to promote partnerships among water systems to build capacity and work
with states and tribes, as well as with utility associations, third-party technical assistance providers,
and other federal partners, to promote the sustainability practices that are the foundation for
building technical, managerial, and financial capacity, known as Capacity Development.103
In FY 2018, the agency will continue to streamline its business processes and systems to reduce
reporting burden on states and regulated facilities, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
regulatory programs for the EPA, states, and tribes.
Key to addressing the most pressing public water system issues is being able to identify which
systems have the greatest need and then efficiently interacting with those systems. In FY 2018, the
EPA will continue work with states to develop SDWIS Prime, the management and reporting tool
used by the majority of state drinking water programs. SDWIS Prime is a centralized infrastructure
technology system that will replace SDWIS State and other systems that are hosted and operated
separately by each primacy agency. Benefits of this transition to SDWIS Prime include
improvements in program efficiency and data quality, greater public access to drinking water data,
facilitation of electronic reporting, reductions in reporting burdens on laboratories and water
utilities, reductions in data management burden for states, and ultimately reduction in public health
risk. In FY 2018, the EPA will complete SDWIS modernization with the release of SDWIS Prime.
SDWIS Prime will be a centralized infrastructure technology system that replaces SDWIS State
and other systems that are currently hosted and operated separately by each primacy agency.
In FY 2016, the EPA released the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) enabling drinking
water utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies with fewer errors
and in a more efficient manner. The portal increases data accuracy and completeness and once fully
implemented, could decrease the overall reporting burden for primacy agencies by hundreds of
thousands of hours. Primacy agencies can use the portal-reported data to make more informed
decisions about water system compliance and focus their limited resources on preventing and
responding to public health problems. In FY 2017, the EPA is assisting primacy agencies in
transitioning to and utilizing CMDP, and will continue this assistance in FY 2018.
In FY 2018, the EPA also will conduct the following activities to facilitate compliance with rules:
• Oversee the national Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program by administering
the PWSS grants to states and measuring program results based on state reporting of health-
based rule violations at public water systems for over 90 drinking water contaminants (i.e.,
microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts, other chemicals, and radiological
contaminants);
102 https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/driiildng-water-tools.
103 Read more on Capacity Development at http://water.epa.gov/tvpe/drmk/pws/smallsvstems/index.cfm.
294
-------
• Offer training and technical assistance on a prioritized basis, using materials developed in
prior years, to states, tribes, and public water systems for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR);
• Directly implement the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, designed to protect millions of people
who travel on over five thousand aircraft in the U.S., if necessary to address identified
significant risks; and
• Directly implement the drinking water program where states do not have primacy (e.g.,
Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and Tribal lands), focused on actions that are under
court order or address significant identified risks.
Drinking Water Standards
To assure the American people that their water is safe to drink, the EPA's drinking water regulatory
program monitors for a broad array of contaminants, evaluates whether contaminants are of public
health concern, and regulates contaminants when there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public water systems. In addition, the EPA will work to reduce lead
risks through revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), and regulations to implement the Water
Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act and the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act.
The EPA will continue its communication with states, tribes, and communities, to understand local
perspectives on the quality of drinking water.
The agency also will continue to evaluate and address drinking water risks in FY 2018, including:
• Preparing a proposed national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate by October
2018 in accordance with a consent decree. Conducting analyses to establish a health based
goal for the regulation, evaluating costs and benefits of alternative regulatory requirements,
and consulting with stakeholders.
• Proposing revisions to the LCR and evaluating public comments on the proposed revisions.
The EPA received comprehensive recommendations from the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) and other concerned stakeholders on potential steps to
strengthen the LCR. The agency will propose regulatory revisions based upon this input and
based upon the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act. The EPA will conduct
an evaluation of the costs and benefits of potential revisions. The EPA will evaluate the public
comments on the proposed revisions and begin development of final rule revisions to the
LCR.
• Evaluating the public comments and any additional data received on the proposed rule that
makes changes to existing regulations based on the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act
(RLDWA) and the Community Fire Safety Act that prohibits the use and introduction into
commerce of lead pipes, plumbing fittings or fixtures, and solder and flux. In developing the
final rule, the EPA will consider public comments and additional data received. The EPA
plans to publish the final rule in FY 2019.
• Collecting and analyzing health effects and occurrence data to assess contaminants on the
fourth contaminant candidate list (CCL 4), that includes Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and 1-4 Dioxane, for regulatory determinations.
Evaluation of these contaminants in FY 2018 is critical for the Agency to publish preliminary
determinations, consider comments, and publish final regulatory determinations by the
SDWA deadline (January 2021).
• Collecting information on microbial pathogens (e.g., Legionella) and disinfection byproducts.
295
-------
Source Water Protection
The EPA will continue to partner with states, drinking water utilities, and other stakeholders to
identify and address current and potential sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts
are integral to the sustainable infrastructure effort because source water protection can reduce the
need for additional drinking water treatment and the associated additional infrastructure costs and
energy usage, while better protecting public health. In the past three years, states of emergency
have been declared due to source water contamination from harmful algal blooms on Lake Erie,
and a leaking chemical storage tank leak on the Elk River that lead to "do not drink" and "do not
use" advisories in Toledo, OH and Charleston, WV respectively, that prevented access to safe
drinking water for residents, hospitals, schools, and businesses in these communities, causing
economic impacts in the tens of millions of dollars. These events highlight the importance of safe
drinking water to public health and local economies, and, in particular, the need to prioritize threats
and protect drinking water sources.
In FY 2018, the agency will:
• Work with stakeholder organizations to encourage continuing engagement in the Source
Water Collaborative,104 which works to leverage resources, support efforts to assist
communities in source water protection activities and projects, and promote ongoing efforts
to protect drinking water sources.
• Develop new and revised drinking water health advisories that will support state needs for
information for their own standards setting processes. Where data is not available, the EPA
will leverage resources from states and international bodies on chemical safety. The EPA's
health advisories provide information to water quality managers on the human health effects
of and methods to sample and treat water contaminants, but are not enforceable national
drinking water standards.
• Continue to support users of the existing data-layers of the Drinking Water Mapping
Application for Protecting Source Waters (DWMAPS)105 through the EPA's geoplatform.
This online GIS-based application enables states, utilities, and others to combine national
datasets previously integrated with DWMAPS with their own datasets, such as chemical
storage facilities and sensitive drinking water intakes, to evaluate threats to drinking water.
DWMAPS also allows users to leverage CWA data to analyze and coordinate water quality
assessments, impaired waters, and point source permit information to protect drinking water
sources.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
In order to safeguard current and future underground sources of drinking water from contamination,
the UIC program regulates the construction, operation, permitting, and closure of injection wells
that place fluids underground for storage, disposal, enhanced recovery of oil and gas, and minerals
recovery. The number of UIC wells, especially Class II oil- and gas-related wells, has risen
significantly in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue. Additionally, as population
growth, land use changes, and drought exacerbate water supply challenges in many areas of the
104 https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/source-water-collaborative.
105 https: //www. epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/dwmaps.
296
-------
country, management of water availability has become increasingly important in providing safe
and reliable drinking water to communities.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to provide some technical support to states and tribes in making
permitting decisions, evaluating approaches to providing oversight related to implementation of
underground injection regulations, and directly implement the UIC regulations where the EPA has
primary authority. Activities include:
• Working with the Ground Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission, and the National Rural Water Association to identify best practices in oil and
gas development, such as reuse and recycling of produced water, that can help safeguard
public health, recognizing the important role that energy extraction, including natural gas
development, plays in our energy future;
• Working with authorized state and Tribal agencies in their efforts to effectively manage
Class II enhanced oil and gas recovery wells and oil and gas-related disposal wells in a
rapidly growing energy sector to prevent endangerment of underground sources of drinking
water;
• Working towards transferring primary enforcement authority for Class II and Class VI
Geologic Sequestration wells from the EPA direct implementation to state programs that
apply for primacy. For example, the EPA approved primary enforcement responsibility of
Class II wells for the State of Kentucky, which took effect on March 21, 2017. The EPA
also will continue working with the State of Michigan on its draft application to assume
Class II primacy, and with North Dakota on its application to assume Class VI primacy;
• Promoting implementation of a nationally consistent and predictable approach to reviewing
and approving aquifer exemption requests;
• Promoting voluntary strategies for improving compliance with Class II regulations,
including risks from induced seismic events from disposal wells;
• Working with Region 9 and the State of California to review and approve aquifer
exemptions so that the state program is consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act and
UIC regulations;
• Continuing to identify aquifer exemption records to add to the national aquifer exemption
data set;
• Providing technical assistance, tools, and strategies to states for improving implementation
of UIC programs, including approaches to reduce the number of earthquake events related
to underground injection activities; and
• Using national UIC data to assist with program oversight of state and the EPA UIC
programs.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,303.0) This program reduction reflects a refocus on core work in the SDWA for FY
2018.
297
-------
• (-$9,994.0 / -77.3 FTE) Resources and FTE changes represent the net of all other changes
in the program and streamlining of activities.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Clean Water Act.
298
-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
299
-------
Marine Pollution
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S
SI 0.1-12.0
S 0.0
(SI O.N 2.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 0,757.x
SI 0.142.0
so.o
(SI 0,142.0)
Total Workyears
37.5
37.4
0.0
-37.4
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Marine Pollution Program partners with other agencies, including the Department of
Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and others to integrate
management of oceans and coasts. This program aims to:l) ensure marine ecosystem protection;
2) manage ocean dumping of dredged material and limit and prevent disposal of wastes and other
materials in the ocean; 3) address emerging environmental threats to the marine and coastal water
quality; 4) protect sensitive marine habitats; and 5) gather data and undertake research to inform
policy and program decisions for protection of the marine and near coastal environment.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will seek
opportunities to continue to meet statutory mandates through the national water program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10,142.0 / -37.4 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Marine Pollution program.
Other federal agencies may continue to support these efforts.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act); Marine
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006; Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987.
300
-------
Surface Water Protection
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
S
S IVV.N'xO
S I'-I.V'xO
(S2-I.W0.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S202.080.5
SI 99.875.0
SI 74.975.0
(S24.900.0)
Total Workyears
986.8
1,023.9
937.1
-86.8
Program Project Description:
The Surface Water Protection Program, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), directly supports
efforts to protect, improve, and restore the quality of our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. The
EPA works with states and tribes to make continued progress toward clean water goals.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will work with states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing states
and tribes with flexibility to best address their particular priorities for Surface Water Protection.
Program Implementation
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to provide scientific water quality criteria information, review
and approve state water quality standards, and review and approve state lists of impaired waters.
Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water
quality protection programs under the CWA. The EPA will continue to support state and Tribal
programs by providing scientific water quality criteria information as required by CWA Section
304. The EPA also will continue to support states and authorized tribes in adopting and
implementing water quality standards in accordance with the water quality standards regulation at
40 CFR part 131.
The EPA will continue to establish or revise effluent guidelines as required under the CWA, as well
as complete an annual review and biennial plan. As required under CWA Section 304(h), the EPA
will revise existing and adopt new analytical test methods for measuring pollutants in wastewater
to incorporate cheaper, safer, faster, more sensitive and/or more accurate analytical test methods.
The EPA will work with states and other partners on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) as
required by CWA Section 303(d) and on other waterbody restoration plans for listed impaired
waterbodies. TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental goals and establish a pollutant budget,
which is then implemented through local, state, and federal watershed plans and programs to restore
waters. The EPA will work with states and tribes on strengthening their Section 303(d) programs
so they strengthen Section 303(d) plans and ensure they are effective. Support also will be provided
to control nonpoint sources of pollution and ensure the protection of high-quality waters.
301
-------
The EPA will continue working with states and tribes to support the statistically valid National
Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) of the condition of the nation's waters which support CWA
Section 305(b). The EPA will continue working with states and tribes to implement base water
quality monitoring and enhancements to develop data that serve multiple CWA programs in a cost-
efficient and effective manner. The EPA will continue supporting state and Tribal water quality
data exchange and tools to maximize use of data from multiple organizations to support water
quality management decisions.
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are implementing the President's Executive Order106
directing the Administrator of the EPA and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to
review the 2015 Clean Water Rule and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding
or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement and support the core water quality programs that
control point source discharges through permitting and pretreatment programs. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, under the CWA, works with states to
structure the permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a
watershed basis.
Infrastructure
The EPA will continue its robust support of the nation's infrastructure. The EPA will focus efforts
to leverage and encourage public and private collaborative efforts and investments in improving
the Nation's water infrastructure.
This program/project supports the policy and fiduciary oversight of the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund program, which provides low-interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment
facilities and other water quality projects. The program supports work toward ensuring the good
financial condition of the State Revolving Funds.
The FY 2018 budget continues to provide funding for the Environmental Finance program which
will help communities across the country improve their wastewater and stormwater systems,
particularly through innovative financing.
Program Oversight/Accountability
States and tribes are important partners for implementing the CWA. For programs where states and
tribes have primacy, the agency will focus on providing oversight and assistance. In addition, as
required under the CWA and Executive Orders 12866, 135638, and 13771, the EPA will continue
to support cost/benefit analysis for CWA regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The agency will continue to develop and work with states to use the updated Assessment and
TMDL Tracking Implementation System (ATTAINS) to track improvements in impaired waters.
106 Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the "Waters of
the United States" Rule available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/28/presidential-executive-order-
restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic
302
-------
This tool will reduce burden on states to track and report progress in meeting water quality
standards in waters targeted for local action and greatly improve evidence-based tracking of local
actions to improve water quality.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$24,900.0 / -86.8 FTE) This streamlines the Surface Water Protection program, including
the elimination of the $3,075 million WaterSense program and also activities under the
Urban Waters program.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act); Marine
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006; Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987.
303
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
304
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$378.9
$172.0
$0.0
($172.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
s 2.
S 2.WI4.0
so.o
(S 2.W4M)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$3,138.2
$3,076.0
$0.0
($3,076.0)
Total Workyears
8.5
10.6
0.0
-10.6
Program Project Description:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the EPA to undertake a variety
of activities to address the public health risk posed by exposure to indoor radon. Under the
statute, the EPA studies the health effects of radon, assesses exposure levels, sets an action
level, provides technical assistance, and advises the public of steps they can take to reduce
exposure. For over 29 years, the EPA's radon program has provided important guidance and
significant funding to help states establish their own programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. This is a mature program
where states have the technical capacity to continue this work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,904.0 / -10.6 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Indoor Air: Radon program.
Statutory Authority:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Clean Air Act.
305
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
syj.yj.v
Sl.\
so.o
(SL\ '<)'.<))
Science & Technology
$260.4
$209.0
$0.0
($209.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,233.3
$13,916.0
$0.0
($13,916.0)
Total Workyears
37.6
40.7
0.0
-40.7
Program Project Description:
Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) authorizes the
EPA to conduct and coordinate research on indoor air quality, develop and disseminate
information, and coordinate risk reduction efforts at the federal, state, and local levels. The EPA
utilizes a range of strategies, including partnerships with non-governmental, professional, federal,
state and local organizations, to educate and prepare individuals, school districts, industry, the
health care community, and others to take action to reduce health risks from poor indoor air
quality in homes, schools, and other buildings.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. This is a mature program
where states have the technical capacity to continue this work.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$13,707.0 / -39.1 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
program.
Statutory Authority:
Title III of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Clean Air Act.
306
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
SSJ'I.O
S K42~.<>
so.o
Science & Technology
S2.064.5
SI.831.0
SO.O
(SI,831.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$2,194.2
$1,981.0
$0.0
($1,981.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$12,629.7
$12,239.0
$0.0
($12,239.0)
Total Workyears
52.9
59.1
0.0
-59.1
Program Project Description:
The EPA has general and specific duties to protect human health and the environment from harmful
and avoidable exposure to radiation under the Atomic Energy Act; Clean Air Act; Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Energy Policy Act; Nuclear Waste
Policy Act; Public Health Service Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act; Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act; and Clean Water Act.
The EPA's Radiation Protection Program carries out these responsibilities through its federal
guidance and standard-setting activities, including: regulatory oversight at the Department of
Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP);107 the regulation of airborne radioactive emissions;
and the development and determination of appropriate methods to measure radioactive releases
and exposures under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
The EPA will explore alternatives to continue to meet its statutory obligation to implement its
regulatory oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) activities at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, as mandated by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal
Act of 1992.
The EPA also will explore alternatives for its requirement, under the Atomic Energy Act, to
establish health and environmental protection standards for exposures to radiation.
107 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiatioii/wipp/backgroimd.htnil.
307
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,427.0 / -36.8 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Radiation: Protection program.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub.
L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute); Clean Air Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Energy
Policy Act of 1992; Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; Public Health Service Act; Safe Drinking
Water Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; Clean
Water Act.
308
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$3,716.5
$3,774.0
$3,339.0
($435.0)
linvironmcnlul Program A- Man axemen!
S 2.0-1'. 1
$2,545.0
S 2.25'.0
(S2SS.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$5,763.6
$6,319.0
$5,596.0
($723.0)
Total Workyears
35.5
39.2
31.5
-7.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for the agency's radiological emergency
response under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The agency maintains its own Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT) and is a member of the Federal Radiological Preparedness
Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) and the Federal Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and
Health (the "A-Team"). The EPA continues to respond to radiological emergencies and conducts
essential national and regional radiological response planning and training and develops
response plans for radiological incidents or accidents.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will evaluate its resources and streamline across radiological emergency
response activities and assets to focus on essential preparedness work. The RERT will maintain
essential readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations
under the NRF and NCP. The EPA will design essential training and exercises to enhance the
RERT's ability to fulfill the EPA's responsibilities and improve overall radiation response
preparedness.108
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline efforts to work with interagency partners under the FRPCC
to revise federal radiation emergency response plans and develop radiological emergency
response protocols and standards as resources dictate. The agency will continue to use guidance
addressing lessons learned from incidents and exercises to ensure the effective delivery of
EPA support in coordination with other federal and state response agencies.
The EPA will continue to participate in essential planning and implementing international and
federal table-top and field exercises, including radiological anti-terrorism activities with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department
of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency also will
continue to train state, local, and federal officials and provide technical support on priority
108 For additional information, see: https://www.epa.gov/radiatioii/radiological-eiiiergeiiCY-respoiise-expertise-aiid-eqMi7iiieiit.
309
-------
issues to federal and state radiation, emergency management, solid waste and health programs
responsible for radiological emergency response and the development of preparedness programs.
The EPA will continue to develop and use both laboratory and field measurement methods,
procedures, and quality systems to support expedited assessment and characterization of outdoor
and indoor areas impacted with radiological contamination. These methods and procedures
will support rapid assessment and triage of impacted areas (including buildings, indoor
environments, and infrastructure) and the development of cleanup strategies.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$288.0 / -3.4 FTE) This streamlines technical support for programs that are responsible
for radiological emergency response and development of their own preparedness programs.
The EPA will evaluate its resources and streamline across radiological emergency response
activities and assets to focus on the most essential preparedness work.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Atomic Energy Act of 1954; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970,
84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic
statute); Clean Air Act; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA);
Public Health Service Act (PHSA); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
310
-------
Program Area: Congressional Priorities
311
-------
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
Program Area: Congressional Priorities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$10,378.5
$14,073.0
$0.0
($14,073.0)
Unviriinmcnliil Program & Miuui^cmcnl
SJ 2. f> "V.«
S12. (> '(>.<)
so.o
(S! 2
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$23,056.5
$26,749.0
$0.0
($26,749.0)
Total Workyears
4.1
4.0
0.0
-4.0
Program Project Description:
The purpose of these cooperative agreements is to provide training and technical assistance for
small public water systems to help such systems achieve and maintain compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and to provide training and technical assistance for small publicly-
owned wastewater systems, communities served by onsite/decentralized wastewater systems, and
private well owners to improve water quality under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. States have the ability to
develop technical assistance plans for their water systems using Public Water System Supervision
funds and set-asides from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12,676.0) This funding change eliminates the Water Quality competitive grant program
since resources are available through other existing programs and states are best positioned
to develop technical assistance plans for their water systems.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §300j-lc, Section 1442. CWA104(b)(3).
312
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Inspector General
Resource Summary Table 315
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations 316
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 317
313
-------
314
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Inspector General
Budget Authority
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
Total Workyears
225.0
268.0
201.4
-66.6
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the
Superfund account.
Bill Language: Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of1978, $37,475,000, to remain available until September 30, 2019.
Program Projects in IG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfund account.
315
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
316
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inspector < icncrul
SJV.MI2.Ji
S -41.-110.0
SJ'.-l'xO
(S ,W.\0)
I Ia/artlous Substance Suporlimd
$8,975.4
$9,920.0
$3,900.0
($6,020.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$48,777.7
$51,330.0
$41,375.0
($9,955.0)
Total Workyears
271.1
318.1
213.4
-104.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Office of Inspector General provides independent audit, program evaluation, inspection
and investigative services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act,
as amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in agency, grantee and contractor operations,
and by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the agency's
programs. Although the OIG is a part of the EPA, to ensure its independence, as specified in the IG
Act (as amended), the OIG is funded with a separate appropriation within the agency. The OIG
activities add value and enhance public trust and safety by providing the agency, the public, and
Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help the EPA management resolve
risks and challenges, achieve opportunities for savings, and implement actions for safeguarding the
EPA resources and accomplishing the EPA's environmental goals. The OIG activities also prevent
and detect fraud in the EPA's programs and operations, including financial fraud, laboratory fraud,
and cybercrime. The OIG consistently provides a significant positive return on investment to the
public in the form of recommendations for improvements in the delivery of the EPA's mission,
reduction in operational and environmental risks, costs savings and recoveries, and improvements
in program efficiencies and integrity.
In addition, the EPA Inspector General was designated by Congress in 2004 to serve as the IG for
the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and provides the full range of audit,
evaluation and investigative services specified by the Inspector General Act, as amended.
Specifically, the OIG conducts required audits of the CSB's financial statements and of CSB's
compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act. In addition, the OIG performs
audits and evaluations of the CSB's programmatic and management activities and follow-up on
prior audit recommendations. The FY 2018 President's Budget proposes elimination of the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
317
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA OIG will assist the agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health risks
by making recommendations to improve program operations; save taxpayer dollars; reduce
potential for fraud, waste and abuse; respond to cybercrimes; and resolve previously identified
major management challenges and internal control weaknesses. In FY 2018, the OIG will continue
recommending improvements to operating efficiency, transparency, secured and trustworthy
systems, and the cost effective attainment of the EPA's strategic goals and positive environmental
impacts.
OIG's plans will continue to be implemented through audits, evaluations, investigations,
inspections, and follow-up reviews in compliance with the Inspector General Act (as amended),
applicable professional standards of the U. S. Comptroller General, and the Quality Standards for
Federal Offices of Inspector General of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency.
OIG will conduct the following types of assignments focused on efficiency and program operations:
program performance, including a focus on the award and administration of grants and contracts;
statutorily mandated audits; financial reviews of grantees and contractors; and information
resources management. In addition, program performance evaluations will be conducted in the
areas of the EPA's mission objectives for improving and protecting the environment and public
health, including: air; water; land cleanup and waste management; toxics, chemical management
and pollution prevention; environmental research; and special program reviews.
The investigative mission of the OIG continues to evolve in conducting criminal, civil, and
administrative investigations into fraud and serious misconduct within the EPA programs and
operations that undermine the organization's integrity and public trust, or create an imminent risk
or danger. The OIG investigations are coordinated with the Department of Justice and other federal,
state, and local law enforcement entities. These investigations often lead to successful prosecution
and civil judgments wherein there is a recovery and repayment of financial losses. Major areas of
investigative focus include: financial fraud, program integrity, threats to the agency's resources,
employee integrity, cyber-crimes, and theft of intellectual or sensitive data.
A significant portion of audit resources will be devoted to statutorily mandated work assessing the
financial statements of the EPA, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act and the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, respectively. The OIG will review the possibility of
contracting out for the financial statements audit. The OIG work also will include assessing the
information security practices of the EPA as required by the Federal Information Security
Management Act. The OIG will examine the delivery and performance of national programs, as
well as specific cross-regional and single region or place based issues that represent a risk to public
health and the environment in response to stakeholder concerns.
The OIG continues to balance its workload with the capacity of a smaller workforce, while meeting
statutorily-mandated requirements and delivering a strong return on investment.
318
-------
Based on prior work, cross-agency risk assessment, agency challenges, future priorities, and
extensive stakeholder input, the OIG will concentrate its resources on efforts in the following
strategic objectives and continuing or prospective assignment areas during FY 2018:
Sound and Economical Financial Management
Annual mandated improper payments audit
• Internal controls
Annual mandated financial statements audits
Audits of costs claimed by grantees and contractors
Grant and contract administration
Lean government initiative
• Maximizing cost efficiencies
Information technology capital investments
Technological changes create transformation opportunities
Annual mandated travel card program, including risk assessment
Annual mandated purchase card and convenience check program, including risk assessment
Oversight of Chief Information Officer's responsibilities under the Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act
Annual mandated audit of compliance with the Federal Information Security Modernization
Act
Invoice Payment Process
Efficient Processes and Use of Resources
Management of Brownfield Revolving Loan Funds after grant closeout
Review of EPA process on reducing taxpayer environmental liabilities
• Partnering or coordination with other agencies to maximize efficiencies
Opportunities to reduce duplication, overlap and fragmentation within the EPA
Grant, Interagency Agreement Grant, and Interagency Agreement Close-Out (per the
Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act)
• Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program
Working Capital Fund efficiencies
Review of city of Atlanta combined sewer overflow program
Ensuring the Integrity of EPA Information
Protection from advanced persistent threats to steal/modify data
Agency efforts to enhance its capability to respond to cyber-attacks
Cybersecurity/infrastructure development; and assessment of processes to ensure protection
and security of information systems from fraud, waste and abuse
File Server Security
Processes for Managing Background Investigations and POA&Ms
Addressing At-Risk Populations. Chronic and Emerging Environmental Health Challenges
• Determine the effectiveness of the EPA's audit process for ensuring (1) the performance of
air quality laboratories, and (2) the proper siting of air monitors
• Evaluation of process for prioritizing and funding cleanup of abandoned uranium mines on
Navajo Nation
319
-------
• Evaluation of the EPA's protection of public health from landfill fires
• Evaluation of compliance inspections in schools to reduce asbestos exposure
• Process and controls for public notification of drinking water quality
Assessing Risk Management and Performance Measurement
• Implementation of Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, Federal Information Security
Management Act and Government Performance and Results Act
• Disaster response and homeland security and emergency preparedness and response
• Construction grants awarded to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
• Review of CGI federal performance
• Amendment Process for Assistance Agreements Related to Brownfields
Reviewing Effectiveness of Stewardship. Sustainabilitv and Prevention
• Permitting of emissions for startup, shutdown and malfunctions
• Mandated readiness reviews of agency DATA act implementation efforts
• Evaluation of internal controls of the EPA's vehicle and fuel emissions laboratory testing
program to detect vehicle emissions fraud
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of internal controls for EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System program
Assessing Program Integrity, Oversight Enforcement and Efficient Rulemaking
• Evaluation of the Management Audit Tracking System
• Oversight of role in rail car spill incident
• Review of workforce restructuring under VERA/VSIP
• Oversight of Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds
• The EPA progress on meeting RCRA statutory mandate for minimum frequency of
inspections at hazardous waste disposal facilities
• Accessing the EPA's policy, procedures, and internal controls to prevent or reduce improper
computer use
Investigations
The Office of Investigations' (01) mission is to conduct criminal, civil, and administrative
investigations of fraud, waste and abuse and serious misconduct within the EPA's programs,
projects, and resources. The 01 investigations are worked in conjunction with the Department of
Justice for criminal and civil litigation or EPA management for administrative action. The 01
currently investigates the following: 1) fraudulent practices in awarding, performing, and paying
the EPA contracts, grants, or other assistance agreements; 2) program fraud or other acts that
undermine the integrity of, or confidence in agency programs, and create imminent environmental
risks; 3) laboratory fraud relating to data, and false claims for erroneous laboratory results that
undermine the basis for decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement actions; 4) threats
directed against EPA employees or facilities; 5) criminal conduct or serious administrative
misconduct by EPA employees; and 6) intrusions into and attacks against the EPA's network
supporting program data, as well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property
or sensitive/proprietary data. Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics,
techniques, and procedures that are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain EPA information.
320
-------
Finally, the 01 develops recommendations or "lessons learned" for the EPA's management to
reduce the agency's vulnerability to criminal activity. The 01's investigations provide measurable
results wherein recovery and restitution of financial losses are achieved and administrative actions
are taken to prevent those involved from further participation in any of the EPA's programs or
operation.
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up reviews
of agency responsiveness to the OIG's recommendations to determine if appropriate actions have
been taken and intended improvements have been achieved. This process will serve as a means for
keeping Congress and the EPA leadership apprised of accomplishments and opportunities for
needed corrective actions, and facilitate greater accountability for results from the OIG operations.
Additionally, as directed by the IG Act (as amended), the OIG also conducts reviews and analysis
of proposed and existing policies, rules, regulations and legislation to identify vulnerability to
waste, fraud and abuse. These reviews also consider possible duplication, gaps or conflicts with
existing authority, leading to recommendations for improvements in their structure, content and
application.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,935.0 / -73.0 FTE) This funding change reflects a number of items reduced or
eliminated including audits/investigation from hotline complaints; congressionally
requested work products; OIGs self-initiated evaluations of high-risk program areas in EPA
statutory programs; discretionary work products; reviews of FY 2018 zeroed-out programs
and activities; development and maintenance of the Active Shooter Program; and the
planning and implementation of the continuity capability for the OIG. This reduction in
OIG workload also reflects the elimination of the CSB.
• (+$1,000.0 / +6.4 FTE) This realignment is a shift in resources from the Superfund account
to the IG Management account in order to ensure adequate resources for the OIG's high risk
audits, evaluations, and investigations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act.
Inspector General Reform Act:
The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General
Reform Act:
321
-------
• the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is
$62 million ($53 million Inspector General; $9 million Superfund Transfer);
• the aggregate President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is $41 million ($37 million
Inspector General; $4 million Superfund Transfer);
• the portion of the aggregate President's Budget needed for training is $700 thousand ($574
thousand Inspector General; $126 thousand Superfund Transfer);
• the portion of the aggregate President's Budget needed to support the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency is $179 thousand ($143.2 thousand Inspector
General; $35.8 thousand Superfund Transfer).
"I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have
requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2018".
322
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities
Resource Summary Table 325
Program Area: Homeland Security 326
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 327
Program Area: Operations and Administration 329
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 330
323
-------
324
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
$44,550.4
$42,237.0
$39,553.0
($2,684.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bill Language: Building and Facilities
For construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase offixed equipment or
facilities of, or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, $39,553,000, to remain available
until expended.
Program Projects in B&F
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
$7,366.2
$6,663.0
$6,176.0
($487.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$44,550.4
$42,236.0
$39,553.0
($2,683.0)
325
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
326
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$4,987.0
$5,336.0
$4,986.0
($350.0)
Science &. Technology
S551.0
S551.0
S500.0
(S51.0)
llnildiiit; (intl i'dcililics
S~J(>(>.2
S (,.(>(>-1.1)
S (>. !'(>.!)
(S-IXti.O)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$833.6
$1,084.0
$542.0
($542.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,737.8
$13,635.0
$12,204.0
($1,431.0)
Total Workyears
8.1
12.2
12.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
This Physical Security and Preparedness program supports the protection of federal employees,
contractors, grantees, and private citizens (occupants) who work within or visit EPA facilities. The
EPA occupies spaces nationwide. Our buildings are a combination of headquarters and regional
administrative offices, program and research laboratories, and support facilities/warehouses. These
facilities are either EPA owned/leased or GSA owned/leased. This funding ensures federal
mandates for physical security (listed below) are met as it relates to physical security and local
emergency preparedness for our locations nationwide. These funds support the physical security
protection equipment and mechanisms required to protect occupants during facility relocation
(moves, new leases, consolidations), physical equipment upgrades/modernization, or corrective
actions required to address security vulnerabilities identified during security assessments.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
With this funding, in FY 2018, the EPA will ensure the following security projects protect our
occupants and comply with federal mandates for physical security: (1) Installation of new security
equipment/systems at our Region 8 headquarters in Denver, CO (consolidation project); (2)
Relocation of the Region 3 headquarters office in Philadelphia, PA; (3) Relocation of the Region 6
headquarters in Dallas, TX; (4) Installation of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) at our facility in
Ft. Meade, MD; (5) Installation of Physical Access Control Systems at Denver, CO, Philadelphia,
PA, and Dallas, TX; and (6) various CCTV and physical security upgrades in response to
vulnerabilities identified by previously conducted physical security assessments.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$488.0) This reduction will delay moving facility Physical Access Control Systems to an
enterprise ePAC solution.
327
-------
Statutory Authority:
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Homeland Security Act of 2002;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
328
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
329
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Environmental Program & Management
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Science &. Technology
S71.332.8
$68.209.0
$68.339.0
SI 30.0
lluihlinx and i'ticililics
sj-.is-i.:
'J-O
SJSJ--.0
(S 2JVfi.lt)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Buildings and Facilities (B&F) appropriation supports the design, construction, repair,
and improvement of the EPA's federally owned and leased land and structures in accordance with
applicable codes and standards. Construction renovation and alteration projects costing more than
$150 thousand must use B&F funding.
B&F resources ensure that the agency complies with various mandates and goals including: the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Executive
Order (EO) 13693,1 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, and regulatory
mandates associated with soil and water pesticides testing.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In accordance with the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property 2015-2020, OMB
Memorandum M-17-08 Section 3,2 and HR 4465,3 the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of
2016, the agency will continue to review its space needs. The EPA is implementing a long-term
space consolidation plan that will reduce the number of occupied facilities, consolidate space within
remaining facilities, and reduce square footage wherever practical. B&F resources support facility-
related construction and the repair and improvement (R&I) of the EPA's aging real estate inventory.
Good stewardship practices demand that the physical conditions, functionality, safety and health,
security, and research capabilities of our facilities are adequately maintained to ensure successful
completion of the EPA's mission requirements and goals.
1 For additional information, refer to: https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3693/.
2 For additional information, refer to: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-17-08 amending omb memorandum m-
12-12 promoting efficient spending to support agency operations.pdf.
3 For additional information, refer to: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4465. Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act of 2016.
330
-------
The B&F appropriation is under significant strain in response to the massive demand for its
resources that include GSA imposed leasing requirements. In any given year, the EPA's programs
and Regional Offices submit approximately $80 to $100 million in requests for B&F projects,
which is well above the funding available. Almost every project is important to the long-term
condition or efficiency of the buildings. Furthermore, the agency projects that the need for B&F
resources will increase in response to new GSA leasing practices which now require agencies to
pay for B&F projects including sustainable features4 as tenant improvements (TI) or up front and
ongoing project costs.
This requirement significantly increases TI cost for new leases at the same time that GSA and the
agency are consolidating space and moving into new locations to reduce the agency's footprint.
Projections indicate that in some cases, TI costs associated with leasing a new office could absorb
close to all of the B&F resources appropriated in a given fiscal year. For example, according to
GSA estimates, TI above the amount amortized in the rent for a new lease for the Region 6 office
in Dallas is projected to cost $15 million in B&F resources alone. Further, in FY 2018, the TI for a
new lease for the Region 3 office in Philadelphia, is projected to cost $11 million.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue to explore opportunities to reconfigure the EPA's workplaces
with the goal of reducing long-term rent costs. During FY 2018, space consolidation (i.e. releasing
floors or portions of leased space) in Regions 3, 6 and 8 will cumulatively release over 156 thousand
square feet and save approximately $5.3 million in rent and facility operation cost after the moves
have been completed. Also during FY 2018, space consolidation activity at the Andrew W.
Breidenbach Environmental Research Center will result in releasing 28,883 square feet of
commercial leased space and save $681 thousand annually. Space consolidation and
reconfiguration enables the EPA to reduce its footprint to create a more efficient, collaborative, and
technologically sophisticated workplace, but even if modifications are kept to a minimum, each
move requires B&F funding.
The FY 2018 request also includes resources for ongoing projects that will provide critical support
to aging laboratory facilities and are key to ensuring that the agency has access to preeminent
laboratory science. These projects maintain a safe workplace, provide for high quality science,
support agency priorities, and advance the agency mission. Delaying essential repairs results in the
deterioration of the EPA's facilities, which increases long-term repair costs and presents safety
risks.
In line with the Laboratory Study completed in 2014, the EPA will focus on facility repairs in those
laboratories that are critical to the agency's mission. These labs will need infrastructure upgrades
to maintain an acceptable Facility Condition Index and to allow for potential future consolidations
from leased facilities. With respect to infrastructure upgrades, the agency will consolidate its lab in
Willamette, OR contingent on an infrastructure replacement project at the Corvallis, OR lab.
In FY 2018, the agency proposes to initiate space optimization projects with the potential for the
greatest long-term cost and energy savings, including the following:
4 Many of these features are required by EISA or executive orders.
331
-------
• Optimizing space at the Athens, GA laboratory. The EPA is in the process of
consolidating employees in leased lab space into owned space. Prior to optimizing the
agency's space footprint in Athens, however, the EPA must first invest in the design for the
optimized layout. The EPA requests $4 million in FY 2018 for this design work, which
must occur prior to any space optimization work.
• Willamette Consolidation to the Corvallis laboratory. The EPA will reconfigure lab
modules to meet the needs of Willamette employees. Before the EPA consolidates the
Willamette laboratory, the agency must modify swing space in Corvallis to accommodate
employees from Willamette while the main infrastructure replacement project is underway.
This project will reduce the space footprint by 20,918 rentable square feet.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue its phased approach to accomplish major B&F projects across
the country involving mechanical systems nearing the end of their useful life that also will
ultimately result in energy savings. A few examples are listed below.
• Replacement of air handlers at the Air and Radiation Lab, Montgomery, AL, Phase
3. This phase of the project will replace the air handler systems within the laboratory and
complete the infrastructure replacement project. Phase 2 was delayed so Phase 3 will not
take place until FY 2018. This investment, which will produce energy and related resource
savings, represents a major priority as it is necessary to maintain operability at the
Montgomery, AL lab.
• Implementation of Phase 2 of the Infrastructure Replacement Project at the Research
and Development laboratory in Corvallis, OR. After the EPA completes Phase 1
construction in FY 2017, Phase 2 will commence in FY 2018 to replace the ductwork and
reduce the number of fume hoods by more than 40 percent. A reduction in the number of
fume hoods will result in a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption. New energy
efficient equipment, procedures, and methods will incorporate reliability, sustainability, and
safety while meeting mission requirements.
• New Region 3 office Tenant Improvements in Philadelphia, PA. Region 3 has occupied
its current leased location for nearly 25 years and significant changes and upgrades are
required. A new lease in a new location will require construction of new special purpose
spaces such as an emergency operations center, a CID secure space, a conference center for
public meetings, and records storage for required Superfund documents. The GSA estimate
for these costs above what will be amortized in the rent is $11 million. A new lease will
allow the EPA to meet new space standards for offices and will reduce the agency's
footprint by 56,000 square feet and avoid an estimated $1.6 million in annual lease costs.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
332
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,196.0) This reduces funding based on the agency's planned progress in its space
optimization projects and laboratory upgrades at the NEIC/Region 8 laboratory.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
333
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Superfund
Resource Summary Table 336
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation 339
Radiation: Protection 340
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations 341
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 342
Program Area: Compliance 346
Compliance Monitoring 347
Program Area: Enforcement 348
Environmental Justice 349
Superfund: Enforcement 350
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement 353
Criminal Enforcement 354
Forensics Support 356
Program Area: Homeland Security 357
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 358
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 360
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 362
Exchange Network 363
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 366
Information Security 367
IT / Data Management 370
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 374
Alternative Dispute Resolution 375
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 376
Program Area: Operations and Administration 378
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 379
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 381
Acquisition Management 383
Human Resources Management 385
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 387
334
-------
Workforce Reshaping 390
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities 392
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities 393
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability 395
Human Health Risk Assessment 396
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup 400
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal 401
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness 403
Superfund: Federal Facilities 405
Superfund: Remedial 407
Program Area: Superfund Special Accounts 409
Superfund Special Accounts 410
335
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority
$1,159,064.2
$1,092,089.0
$762,063.0
($330,026.0)
Total Workyears
2,674.8
2,662.6
2,060.1
-602.5
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfund account.
Bill Language: Hazardous Substance Superfund
For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), including sections 111(c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42
U.S.C. 9611) $762,063,000, to remain available until expended, consisting of such sums as are
available in the Trust Fund on September 30, 2017, as authorized by section 517(a) of the Super-
fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to $ 762,063,000 as a payment
from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as authorized by
section 517(b) of SARA: Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Providedfurther, That
of the funds appropriated under this heading, $3,900,000 shall be paid to the "Office of Inspector
General" appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2019, and $12,435,000 shall be
paid to the "Science and Technology" appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2019.
Program Projects in Superfund
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Indoor Air and Radiation
Radiation: Protection
$2,194.2
$1,981.0
$0.0
($1,981.0)
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$8,975.4
$9,920.0
$3,900.0
($6,020.0)
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$844.1
$993.0
$605.0
($388.0)
Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
$6,883.7
$7,110.0
$4,161.0
($2,949.0)
Environmental Justice
$681.7
$544.0
$0.0
($544.0)
336
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Forensics Support
$1,739.3
$1,087.0
$708.0
($379.0)
Superfond: Enforcement
$154,117.5
$150,342.0
$94,418.0
($55,924.0)
Superfiind: Federal Facilities Enforcement
$6,217.9
$6,976.0
$0.0
($6,976.0)
Subtotal, Enforcement
$169,640.1
$166,059.0
$99,287.0
($66,772.0)
Flomeland Security
Flomeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
$36,411.9
$35,209.0
$16,457.0
($18,752.0)
Flomeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
$833.6
$1,084.0
$542.0
($542.0)
Subtotal, Flomeland Security
$37,245.5
$36,293.0
$16,999.0
($19,294.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach
Exchange Network
$1,291.4
$1,325.0
$838.0
($487.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
$6,008.0
$6,071.0
$3,186.0
($2,885.0)
IT / Data Management
$14,968.1
$13,776.0
$8,213.0
($5,563.0)
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
$20,976.1
$19,847.0
$11,399.0
($8,448.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
$486.5
$674.0
$0.0
($674.0)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$652.4
$577.0
$349.0
($228.0)
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
$1,138.9
$1,251.0
$349.0
($902.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$21,331.2
$22,084.0
$12,226.0
($9,858.0)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Acquisition Management
$22,129.0
$22,418.0
$14,036.0
($8,382.0)
Human Resources Management
$4,908.5
$6,333.0
$4,580.0
($1,753.0)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
$2,845.0
$2,889.0
$1,591.0
($1,298.0)
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$10,437.0
$10,437.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$120,381.7
$127,861.0
$101,942.0
($25,919.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$13,622.3
$14,005.0
$5,655.0
($8,350.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
337
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Human Health Risk Assessment
$2,751.4
$2,838.0
$5,305.0
$2,467.0
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
$210,668.5
$180,961.0
$147,212.0
($33,749.0)
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
$8,148.1
$7,621.0
$7,216.0
($405.0)
Superfund: Federal Facilities
$21,799.4
$21,085.0
$19,553.0
($1,532.0)
Superfund: Remedial
$539,387.1
$500,048.0
$341,803.0
($158,245.0)
Subtotal, Superfund: Remedial
$539,387.1
$500,048.0
$341,803.0
($158,245.0)
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
$780,003.1
$709,715.0
$515,784.0
($193,931.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$1,159,064.2
$1,092,088.0
$762,063.0
($330,025.0)
*For ease of comparison, Superfund transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfund account.
338
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
339
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$8,371.0
$8,427.0
$0.0
($8,427.0)
Science &. Technology
S2.064.5
SI .831.0
so.o
(SI.831.0)
l/iiz.urtlon.\ Substance SH/'crfuntl
s:.i
SI.VfH.lt
sit.it
(SIMI.lt)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$12,629.7
$12,239.0
$0.0
($12,239.0)
Total Workyears
52.9
59.1
0.0
-59.1
Program Project Description:
This program addresses potential radiation risks found at some Superfund and hazardous waste
sites. Through this program, the EPA ensures that Superfund site cleanup activities reduce and/or
mitigate the health and environmental risk of radiation to include support of removal actions, as
needed.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The EPA will explore
alternatives to manage potential radiation risks at Superfund and hazardous waste sites to meet
necessary requirements.
The EPA will explore alternatives to continue to meet its statutory obligation to implement its
regulatory oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) activities at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, as mandated by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal
Act of 1992.
The EPA also will explore alternatives for its requirement, under the Atomic Energy Act, to
establish health and environmental protection standards for exposures to radiation.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,981.0 / -10.0 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Radiation: Protection
program.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
340
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
341
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inspector General
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
SX.Vx-/
S'J.'JJO.O
,S.\ VOIK t)
(Sf>.020.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$48,777.7
$51,330.0
$41,375.0
($9,955.0)
Total Workyears
271.1
318.1
213.4
-104.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Office of Inspector General provides audit, program evaluation, and investigative
services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by
identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in agency, grantee and contractor operations, and by promoting
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the agency's Superfund program.
Although the OIG is a part of the EPA, to ensure its independence, as specified in the IG Act (as
amended), the OIG is funded with a separate appropriation within the agency. The OIG activities
add value and enhance public trust and safety by providing the agency, the public, and Congress
with independent analyses and recommendations that help the EPA management resolve risks and
challenges, achieve opportunities for savings, and implement actions for safeguarding the EPA
resources and accomplishing the EPA's environmental goals. The OIG activities also prevent and
detect fraud in the EPA's programs and operations, including financial fraud, laboratory fraud, and
cybercrime. The OIG consistently provides a significant positive return on investment to the public
in the form of recommendations for improvements in the delivery of the EPA's mission, reduction
in operational and environmental risks, costs savings and recoveries, and improvements in program
efficiencies and integrity.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA's OIG will assist the agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health risks
by making recommendations to improve Superfund program operations; save taxpayer dollars,
reduce potential for fraud, waste and abuse; respond to cybercrimes; and resolve previously
identified maj or management challenges and internal control weaknesses. In FY 2018, the OIG will
continue recommending improvements to operating efficiency, transparency, secured and
trustworthy systems, and the cost effective attainment of the EPA's strategic goals and positive
environmental impacts related to the Superfund program.
The OIG's plans will continue to be implemented through audits, evaluations, investigations,
inspections, and follow-up reviews in compliance with the Inspector General Act (as amended),
applicable professional standards of the U. S. Comptroller General, and the Quality Standards for
Federal Offices of Inspector General of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency.
342
-------
The OIG will conduct the following types of assignments focused on efficiency and program
operations: program performance, including a focus on the award and administration of grants and
contracts; statutorily mandated audits; financial reviews of grantees and contractors; and
information resources management. In addition, program performance evaluations will be
conducted in the areas of the EPA's mission objectives for improving and protecting the
environment and public health via reviews of Superfund and other land issues.
The investigative mission of the OIG continues to evolve in conducting criminal, civil, and
administrative investigations into fraud and serious misconduct within the EPA's Superfund
program and operations that undermine the organization's integrity and public trust, or create an
imminent risk or danger. The OIG investigations are coordinated with the Department of Justice
and other federal, state, and local law enforcement entities. These investigations often lead to
successful prosecution and civil judgments wherein there is a recovery and repayment of financial
losses. Major areas of investigative focus include: financial fraud, program integrity, threats to the
agency's resources, employee integrity, cyber-crimes, and theft of intellectual or sensitive data.
The OIG continues to balance its workload with the capacity of a smaller workforce while meeting
statutorily mandated requirements and delivering a strong return on taxpayer investment.
Audits and Evaluations
The OIG audits and program evaluations and inspections related to Superfund will identify program
and management risks and determine if the EPA is efficiently and effectively reducing human
health risks; taking effective enforcement actions; cleaning up hazardous waste; managing waste,
restoring previously polluted sites to appropriate uses; and ensuring long-term stewardship of
polluted sites. The OIG assignments will include: assessing the adequacy of internal controls in the
EPA and its grantees and contractors to protect resources and achieve program results; project
management to ensure that the EPA and its grantees and contractors have clear plans and
accountability for performance progress; enforcement to evaluate whether there is consistent,
adequate and appropriate application of the laws and regulations across jurisdictions with
coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement activities; and grants and contracts
to verify that such awards are made based upon uniform risk assessment, and that grantees and
contractors perform with integrity.
Prior audits and evaluations of the Superfund program have identified numerous barriers to
implementing effective resource management and program improvements. Therefore, the OIG will
concentrate its resources on efforts in the following assignment areas:
• Human and Environmental Exposure from Superfund Site Contaminants
• Impact of using Special Account Funds on cleaning up Superfund sites
• Optimization of Superfund financed Pump and Treat Systems
• Siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated land and mine sites
• The EPA's progress in ensuring private party Superfund liabilities are adequately covered
by sufficient financial assurance mechanisms.
• Determine if EPA has demonstrated that imminent and substantial environmental threats to
public health have been addressed under the Superfund removal program.
343
-------
• Superfund portion of the EPA's financial statement and FISMA audit
sampling, monitoring, communication and opportunities for cleanup efficiencies
• Review of the EPA's Working Capital Fund background investigations services
• Oversight of Superfund State Contract for Remedial Activities
The OIG also will evaluate ways to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse, with emphasis on identifying
opportunities for cost savings and reducing risk of resource loss, while maximizing results achieved
from Superfund contracts and assistance agreements.
Investigations
The Office of Investigations (01) mission is to conduct criminal, civil, and administrative
investigations of fraud, waste and abuse and serious misconduct within the EPA's Superfund
Program. The 01 investigations are worked in conjunction with the Department of Justice for
criminal and civil litigation or the EPA's management for administrative action. 01 currently
investigates the following: 1) fraudulent practices in awarding, performing, and paying Superfund
contracts, grants, or other assistance agreements; 2) program fraud or other acts that undermine the
integrity of, or confidence in the Superfund program and create imminent environmental risks; 3)
laboratory fraud relating to data, and false claims or erroneous laboratory results that undermine
the basis for decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement actions in the Superfund
program; 4) threats directed against Superfund program employees or facilities; 5) criminal conduct
or serious administrative misconduct by EPA employees involved in the Superfund program; and
6) intrusions into and attacks against the EPA's network supporting Superfund program data, as
well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property or sensitive/proprietary
Superfund data. Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics, techniques, and
procedures that are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain Superfund program information.
Finally, 01 develops recommendations or "lessons learned" for the EPA's management which
works on the Superfund program to reduce the agency's vulnerability to criminal activity. The OI's
investigations provide measurable results wherein recovery and restitution of financial losses are
achieved and administrative actions are taken to prevent those involved from further participation
in any Superfund program or operation.
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up reviews
of agency responsiveness to the OIG recommendations for the Superfund program to determine if
appropriate actions have been taken, and intended improvements have been achieved. This process
will serve as a means to keep Congress and EPA leadership apprised of accomplishments, and
opportunities for needed corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from
the OIG operations.
Additionally, as directed by the IG Act (as amended), the OIG also conducts reviews and analysis
of proposed and existing policies, rules, regulations and legislation pertaining to the Superfund
program to identify vulnerability to waste, fraud and abuse. These reviews also consider possible
344
-------
duplication, gaps or conflicts with existing authority, leading to recommendations for
improvements in their structure, content and application.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,020.0 / -31.7 FTE) This funding change reflects a number of items reduced or
eliminated including audits/investigation from hotline complaints; congressionally
requested work products; OIGs self-initiated evaluations of high-risk program areas in EPA
statutory programs; discretionary work products; reviews of FY 2018 zeroed-out programs
and activities; development and maintenance of the Active Shooter Program; and the
planning and implementation of the continuity capability for the OIG.
• ($-1,000.0 / -6.4 FTE) This realignment is a shift in resources from the Superfund account
to the IG account in order to ensure adequate resources for the OIG's high risk audits,
evaluations, and investigations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act § 111 (k).
Inspector General Reform Act:
The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General
Reform Act:
• the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is
$62 million ($53 million Inspector General; $9 million Superfund Transfer);
• the aggregate President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is $41 million ($37 million
Inspector General; $4 million Superfund Transfer);
• the portion of the aggregate President's Budget needed for training is $700 thousand ($574
thousand Inspector General; $126 thousand Superfund Transfer);
• the portion of the aggregate President's Budget needed to support the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency is $179 thousand ($143.2 thousand Inspector
General; $35.8 thousand Superfund Transfer).
"I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have
requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2018".
345
-------
Program Area: Compliance
346
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$143.3
$139.0
$124.0
($15.0)
I'.nvironmenlal Program &. Management
SI 03.713.4
SI 01.472.0
S86.431.0
(SI 5.041.0)
l/iiz.urtlon.\ Substance SH/'crfuntl
.SiS'77. /
s w.«
SfiOxfl
(SJWti.fl)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$104,700.8
$102,604.0
$87,160.0
($15,444.0)
Total Workyears
510.4
539.6
432.4
-107.2
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Monitoring program promotes compliance with the nation's environmental laws.
Compliance monitoring is comprised of a variety of tools and activities that states and the EPA use
to identify whether regulated entities are in compliance with environmental laws enacted by
Congress, as well as applicable regulations and permit conditions. In addition, compliance
monitoring activities, such as inspections and investigations, are conducted to determine whether
conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment. The program focuses on providing information and system support for monitoring
compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and contaminated site clean-up
agreements. The agency also ensures the security and integrity of its compliance information
systems. Superfund-related regulatory enforcement program activities are tracked in the agency's
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline its Superfund-related compliance monitoring activities.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$388.0 / -0.7 FTE) This streamlines system support for Superfund compliance monitoring.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
347
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
348
-------
Environmental Justice
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$7,347.6
$6,724.0
$0.0
($6,724.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
SOU J. '
$544.0
so.o
(S 544.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,029.3
$7,268.0
$0.0
($7,268.0)
Total Workyears
35.8
40.3
0.0
-40.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA Environmental Justice program fosters environmental and public health and sustainability
in communities disproportionately burdened by pollution by integrating and addressing issues of
environmental justice in our programs and policies. The Superfund portion of the program focuses
on issues that affect low income and minority communities at or near Superfund sites. The
Environmental Justice program complements the agency's community outreach and other work
done under the Superfund program at affected sites.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. EJ work impacting the
entire agency will be incorporated into future policy work within the Integrated Environmental
Strategy program, which is a part of the EPA's Office of the Administrator.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$544.0 / -3.5 FTE) This funding change eliminates the Environmental Justice program.
Environmental Justice will continue to be supported in the work done at the EPA, as
applicable.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended.
349
-------
Superfund: Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
Sl>4.1l~5
SJ 50 J-12.0
S V4.4! KM
(S >>.1)24.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI.HI 17.5
SI 5(042.0
S94.418.0
(S55.924.0)
Total Workyears
759.7
771.3
546.1
-225.2
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Superfund Enforcement program protects communities by ensuring that responsible
parties conduct cleanups, preserving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing
parties. The EPA's Superfund Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and reuse by
maximizing the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying for cleanups. In
both the Superfund Remedial and Superfund Emergency Response and Removal programs, the
Superfund Enforcement program obtains potentially responsible parties commitments to perform
and pay for cleanups through civil, judicial, and administrative site actions. To do this, the
Superfund Enforcement program works closely with the Superfund program and the Department
of Justice (DOJ) to combine litigation, legal, and technical skills to bring enforcement actions and
address emerging issues.
The Superfund Enforcement program:
• develops hazardous waste cleanup enforcement policies;
• provides guidance and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liability, with
specific attention to the cleanup, reuse and revitalization of contaminated properties;
• ensures that responsible parties cleanup sites to reduce direct human exposure to hazardous
substances, thereby providing long-term human health protections and making
contaminated properties available for reuse;
• negotiates cleanup agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at hazardous
waste sites and, where negotiations fail, either initiates enforcement actions to require
cleanup or initiates cost recovery if the EPA expends Superfund appropriated dollars to
remediate the sites; and
• ensures that federal entities perform needed, timely and protective cleanup responses on
contaminated sites owned and/or operated by the federal government thereby promoting
cleanup and potential redevelopment of the federal facilities.
The DOJ support is statutorily mandated for settlements related to remedial action cleanups, most
cost recovery settlements, and is required for all judicial enforcement matters. The EPA has
implemented various reforms to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, promote economic
development, and make sites available for appropriate reuse. The EPA also works to ensure that
required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial assurance requirements are in place
at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of Superfund cleanup remedies. In FY
350
-------
2016, the EPA reached a settlement or took an enforcement action at 100 percent of non-federally
owned Superfund sites with viable, liable parties.1
Special accounts are created when funds are received as part of a settlement to fund a site cleanup.
Funds received in settlements with PRPs are used to clean up the specific Superfund sites that were
the subject of the settlement agreement. Having the ability to use special accounts provides needed
cleanup dollars at many sites that otherwise may not have received funding absent the EPA's
enforcement efforts. In FY 2016, the EPA created 27 special accounts, collected $165.6 million for
response work and accrued $0.9 million in interest for a total of $166.5 million in new funding.2
The agency disbursed or obligated $306.7 million for response work (excluding reclassifications).
In FY 2016, the Superfund Enforcement program secured private party commitments exceeding
$1.15 billion.
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, the EPA must enter into interagency agreements, also
commonly referred to as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), with responsible federal entities to
ensure protective and timely cleanup of their National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The agreements
provide that the EPA oversee the cleanups to ensure they protect public health and the environment.
These FFAs govern cleanups at 174 federal facility Superfund sites, which include many of the
nation's largest and most complex cleanup projects totaling between $4.0 billion and $7.0 billion
annually.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA is requesting to merge the Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program
with the Superfund Enforcement program. The agency will optimize the resources between the two
programs.
Within our resource levels, the agency will prioritize its efforts on the most significant sites in terms
of environmental impact (particularly those that may present an imminent and/or substantial
endangerment) and potential cost liability to the government.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue its efforts to establish special accounts to facilitate cleanup.
As special account funds may only be used for sites and uses specified in the settlement agreement,
both special account resources and annually appropriated resources are critical to the Superfund
program to clean up Superfund sites.
Due to resource levels within the FY 2018 budget request, DOJ support for Superfund enforcement
will need to come from DOJ's base resources. The EPA may seek to increase use of unilateral
administrative orders to achieve cleanups to account for a potential limited ability to sue PRPs in
federal court. To the extent DOJ resources are available, DOJ's support will be used to negotiate
and enter consent decrees with PRPs to perform remedial actions, to pursue judicial actions to
compel PRP cleanup, and to pursue judicial actions to recover monies spent in cleaning up
contaminated sites.
1 For additional information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcenient-anniial-results-fiscal-year-fy-2016.
2 In FY 2016, $26.4 million in interest was earned on the special account funds invested in the Superfund Trust Fund. However,
there was a time lag for those funds to be captured in the agency's system and made available for use.
351
-------
In terms of federal facility work in FY 2018, the EPA will focus its resources on resolving formal
disputes under the Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs).
Cost Recovery Support
The agency will streamline the financial management aspects of Superfund cost recovery and the
collection of related debt to the federal government. The EPA's financial, programmatic, and legal
offices will continue to maintain the accounting and billing of Superfund oversight costs
attributable to responsible parties. These costs represent the EPA's cost of overseeing Superfund
site cleanup efforts by responsible parties as stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements. In
FY 2016, the agency collected $165.6 million in cost recoveries, of which $1.3 million were
returned to the Superfund Trust Fund and $164.3 million were deposited in site-specific, interest
bearing special accounts.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$40,229.0 / -251.9 FTE) This change reflects the streamlining of the agency's
identification of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), settlement negotiations for cleanup
and recovery costs when the agency has expended funds for cleanups. This change extends
the timeline of support and modernization of the Superfund Cost Recovery Package
Imaging and On-Line System (SCORPIOS).
• (-$20,145.0) This eliminates the EPA's financial support to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to assist the EPA in initiating and prosecuting civil, judicial, and administrative site
remediation cases and ensure that responsible parties perform cleanup actions at sites where
they are liable.
• (+$4,450.0 / +26.7 FTE) This merges the Superfund Federal Facility Enforcement program
into the Superfund Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended, §120.
352
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
SO.'J'0.0
so.o
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S6.217.9
S6,976.0
so.o
(S6,976.0)
Total Workyears
34.9
40.9
0.0
-40.9
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that sites where federal
entities are performing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) responses and/or CERCLA sites with federal ownership are monitored and that
appropriate enforcement responses are pursued. After years of service and operation, some federal
facilities contain environmental contamination such as hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance,
radioactive wastes, or other toxic substances.
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, the EPA must enter into interagency agreements, also
commonly referred to as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), with responsible federal entities to
ensure protective cleanup of their National Priorities List (NPL) sites at a timely pace. The
agreements provide that the EPA oversee the cleanups to ensure that they protect public health and
the environment. These FFAs govern cleanups at 174 federal facility Superfund sites, which include
many of the Nation's largest and most complex cleanup projects.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA is requesting to merge this program with the Superfund Enforcement program.
A description of planned FY 2018 activities can be found under that program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,526.0 / -14.2 FTE) This streamlines Superfund Federal Facility Enforcement.
• (-$4,450.0 / -26.7 FTE) This merges the Superfund Federal Facility Enforcement program
into the Superfund Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended, §120.
353
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$47,844.7
$46,225.0
$40,341.0
($5,884.0)
Hiiz.urilon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
Vi.,SW. "
S'J 10.0
S-UOU)
(S 2.V4V.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$54,728.4
$53,335.0
$44,502.0
($8,833.0)
Total Workyears
247.8
268.9
194.4
-74.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute violations of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
associated violations of Title 18 of the United States Code such as fraud, conspiracy, false
statements, and obstruction of justice. The EPA's criminal enforcement agents (Special agents) do
this through targeted investigation of criminal conduct, committed by individual and corporate
defendants, that threatens public health and the environment.
Within the Criminal Enforcement program, forensic scientists, attorneys, technicians, engineers,
and other program experts assist Special Agents. The EPA's criminal enforcement attorneys
provide legal and policy support for all of the program's responsibilities, including forensics and
expert witness preparation, information law, and personnel law to ensure that program activities
are carried out in accordance with legal requirements and agency policies. These efforts support
environmental crimes prosecutions primarily by the United States Attorneys and the Department
of Justice's Environmental Crimes Section. In FY 2016, the conviction rate for criminal defendants
was 94 percent.3
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline its Criminal Enforcement program. The program will focus
its resources on the most egregious cases (e.g., significant human health, environmental, and
deterrent impacts), while balancing its overall case load across all environmental statutes.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,949.0 / -15.2 FTE) This streamlines the EPA's Criminal Enforcement program.
3 For additional information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcenient-anniial-results-fiscal-vear-fv-2016.
354
-------
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act; Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18
General Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Power of Environmental Protection
Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063); Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub.
L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
355
-------
Forensics Support
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$13,949.7
$13,643.0
$10,444.0
($3,199.0)
Hiiz.urilon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
SI.
si.ns'.n
S'OS.O
(SJ'<)./))
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$15,689.0
$14,730.0
$11,152.0
($3,578.0)
Total Workyears
78.3
80.3
49.7
-30.6
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides expert scientific and technical support for Superfund civil
and criminal enforcement cases, as well as technical expertise for agency compliance efforts. The
EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) is an environmental forensic center
accredited for both laboratory and field sampling operations that generate environmental data for
law enforcement purposes. It is fully accredited under International Standards Organization (ISO)
17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories, as recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences.4 The NEIC maintains a sophisticated chemistry laboratory and a
corps of highly trained inspectors and scientists with expertise across media. The NEIC works
closely with the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division to provide technical support (e.g., sampling,
analysis, consultation and testimony) to criminal investigations. The NEIC also works closely with
the EPA's Headquarters and Regional Offices to provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site
inspection, investigation, and case resolution services in support of the agency's Superfund
Enforcement program.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, for the EPA, NEIC will provide high-quality forensics work.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$379.0 / -2.9 FTE) This streamlines the Forensics Support program.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the
EPA's organic statute).
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academy of Sciences, 2009, available at
http://www.nap.edii/catalog.php7record id=12589.
356
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
357
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$26,800.2
$26,004.0
$22,597.0
($3,407.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S 36.-/II.V
N
SI (,.-15'J)
(SIS. '52.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$63,212.1
$61,213.0
$39,054.0
($22,159.0)
Total Workyears
132.4
127.4
113.0
-14.4
Program Project Description:
The EPA leads or supports many aspects of preparing for and responding to a nationally significant
incident involving possible chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents.
The Homeland Security Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program implements a broad range
of activities for a variety of federal efforts, including those involving laboratory analysis of
environmental samples and site decontamination projects. This work is consistent with the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') National Response Framework.
This program also is supported by the Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) in the EPA's
Research and Development program which develops and evaluates environmental sampling,
analysis, and human health risk assessment methods. These methods address known and emerging
biological, chemical, and radiological threat agents. This Research Program also develops and
assesses decontamination and waste management technologies and methods.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the Homeland Security Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Program will:
• Participate with federal response partners (such as DHS, DOD, and the Department of
Justice) on inter-agency workgroups;
• Carry out and participate in training and exercises on CBRN preparedness and response
topics;
• Maintain operational support for the Emergency Management Portal and WebEOC
response systems;
• Continue to focus on assessing the persistence and transport of biological agents in indoor
and outdoor areas and the effectiveness of decontamination options for sites contaminated
with biological agents;
358
-------
• Continue development of sample collection protocols for inclusion in the Selected
Analytical Methods for Environmental Remediation and Recovery (SAM) sample
collection compendium document. The SAM methods are a repository for pre-selected
methods to use in a response and all Environmental Response Lab Networks (ERLN) labs
are directed to use these methods; and
• Continue development and assessment of methods for treating waste generated during
remediation activities. These methods are expected to reduce both the timeline and cost of
the response by reducing the volume of waste that requires final disposal.
The EPA will explore alternatives for meeting its various obligations under Homeland Security
Presidential Directives and Orders to ensure that the agency can maintain its preparedness and
response capacity.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7,801.0 / -7.9 FTE) This change reduces support for several national trainings;
participation in national inter-agency exercises with federal and state partners; support for
headquarters and regional Emergency Operations Centers; support for the agency's
continuity of operations devolution site in the EPA Colorado office; and enhancements for
national information technology systems.
• (-$8,855.0 / -6.2 FTE) This includes the reduction of support for the Environmental
Response Laboratory Network. This also includes reassessing the need to specifically use
PHILIS and ASPECT for emergency response activities.
• (-$1,600.0) This change reduces secure warehouse space.
• (-$496.0) This change decreases research related to analysis of chemical agents, decision
support for chemical agent remediation, fate and transport of chemical, biological, or
radiological (CBR) agents in the environment as well as research related to the treatment of
decontamination wash water.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 104,
105, and 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act; Homeland Security Act of 2002.
359
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$4,987.0
$5,336.0
$4,986.0
($350.0)
Science & Technology
$551.0
$551.0
$500.0
($51.0)
Building and Facilities
S7.366.2
S6.664.0
S6.176.0
(S488.01
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
SSJJJi
S IMH4.lt
N 5-12.1)
(S 542.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,737.8
$13,635.0
$12,204.0
($1,431.0)
Total Workyears
8.1
12.2
12.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
The federal government develops and maintains Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans and
procedures that provide for the continued performance of its essential functions. The Homeland
Security COOP program works with other government and non-government organizations to
ensure that Mission Essential Functions (MEFs) and Primary Mission Essential Functions
(PMEFs) continue to be performed during emergency situations. The Department of Homeland
Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Federal Continuity Directive
(FCD)-l requires the EPA to develop a continuity plan that ensures that its ability to accomplish
its MEFs from an alternate site during a national disaster continues and that the agency be able to
do so with limited staffing and without access to resources available during normal activities.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will undertake the following:
• Conduct selected annual reviews of regional COOP plans, PMEFs, and MEFs and make
updates as needed;
• Monitor the continuity programs across the agency, focusing on testing, training, and
exercises as related to general COOP awareness and procedures; and
• Undergo a monthly evaluation of the headquarters COOP program, including Program
Plans and Procedures, Risk Management, Budgeting, and Essential Functions. Further,
FEMA performs an in-person biannual review of the EPA's COOP program and provides
the results to the Administrator and to the Executive Office of the President.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
360
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$300.0) This change reduces support for COOP exercises and Core COOP assessments at
Headquarters and the regions.
• (-$242.0) This decision reduces availability of secure communications equipment for
agency staff.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 104,
105, 106; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Homeland Security Act of
2002; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute).
361
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
362
-------
Exchange Network
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$17,066.5
$16,984.0
$11,784.0
($5,200.0)
Hiiz.urilon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
S 1.291.-1
$1,325.0
SSJS.O
(S-IS'.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$18,357.9
$18,309.0
$12,622.0
($5,687.0)
Total Workyears
31.3
30.2
30.2
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN) is a standards-based, secure
approach for the EPA and its state, Tribal and territorial partners to exchange and share
environmental data over the Internet. Previous provision of new technology and data standards,
open-source software, shared and portal services and reusable tools and applications have enabled
EN partners to manage and analyze environmental data more effectively and efficiently, leading to
improved decision-making.
The Central Data Exchange (CDX)5 is the largest component of the EN program and serves as the
point of entry on the EN for environmental data submissions to the agency. CDX provides a set of
core shared services that promote a leaner and more cost-effective enterprise architecture for the
agency by avoiding the creation of duplicative services. It also provides a set of value-added
features and services that enable faster and more efficient transactions for internal and external
clients of the EPA, resulting in reduced burden.
CDX data exchange services are leveraged by the EPA's programs, regions, states, tribes, territories
and other federal agencies to meet their different business needs. With CDX, a stakeholder can
submit data through one centralized point of access, exchange data with target systems using Web
services and utilize publishing services to share information collected by the EPA and other
stakeholders. By managing loosely connected and interoperable services, data exchange needs can
be met using one or all of the available services such as:
• User registration;
• External user identity management;
• Electronic signature;
• Encryption and transmission;
• Virtual exchange services (VES); and
• Data quality assurance.
5 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/.
363
-------
Working in conceit with CDX are the EPA's System of Registries, which are centralized shared
data services to improve data quality in EPA, state, and Tribal program data, while promoting
burden reduction for the reporting community. The registries manage shared data centrally for reuse
by the following EN partners:
• Facility Registry Service (FRS);
• Substance Registry Services (SRS);
• Tribes;
• Laws and Regulations Services (LRS);
• Terminology Services (TS);
• Reusable Component Services (RCS);
• Environmental Dataset Gateway (EDG);
• Registry of EPA Applications, Models, and Databases (READ); and
• Data Element Registry Services (DERS).
These shared data services catalog the EPA and EN partner assets, from commonly regulated
facilities and substances to the current list of federally recognized tribes. They identify the standard
or official names for these assets, which when integrated into EPA and partner applications fosters
data consistency and data quality as well as enabling data integration. By integrating these shared
data services into their online reporting forms, the EPA and its EN partners make it easier for the
reporting community to discover the correct information to submit, reducing burden, which enables
reuse by partner programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide baseline functions for the Exchange Network IT systems.
Schedules and plans for upgrades and modernization will be adjusted to align with capacity. As
part of the E-Enterprise business strategy, the EPA will continue to carry out the following projects
under the Exchange Network program: expanding the roll out of Federated Identity Management
system for the EPA and its partners; developing shared facility identification services that improve
quality and reduce burden on states and tribes; developing initial services for EPA's Laws and
Regulations (LRS) registry, which will standardize identification of and associations between
regulations, laws, and EPA's programs; and deploying reusable electronic signature services to
streamline Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) compliance.
Advancements in data transport services, such as Virtual Exchange Services (VES), will continue
to provide cloud-based solutions for the EPA's state and Tribal partners.
In FY 2018 the EPA will:
• Conduct robust outreach activities to increase awareness of CROMERR services and the
savings to states and tribes from using these services; and
• Approve CROMERR applications from authorized programs that propose to use the EPA's
shared CROMERR services and assist co-regulators with integrating these services into
their systems.
364
-------
CROMERR activities are intended to assist states and tribes in the development activities
associated with establishing a point of presence, exchanging data on the Network, and supporting
local electronic reporting programs in a more cost effective way. The proven success of this strategy
is illustrated by past improvements in performance measures, which include the number of states,
Tribes and territories exchanging data with CDX (from 63 in FY 2011 to 125 in FY 2016) and
unique active users (up from 56,200 in FY 2011 to 116,636 in FY 2016).
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$487.0) This reduces the collection and exchange of environmental data with states, tribes,
and regulated entities, modifies the timeline to address required modifications to the
Exchange Network IT systems, reduces quality assurance of registries, and refocuses
modernization efforts.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act
(CWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA); Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA);
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA); The Privacy Act of 1974;
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
365
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
366
-------
Information Security
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$27,152.6
$28,132.0
$11,997.0
($16,135.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
so.tm.o
so.tr i.o
s.ijso.n
(S J.SSxO)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$33,160.6
$34,203.0
$15,183.0
($19,020.0)
Total Workyears
12.8
14.3
12.8
-1.5
Program Project Description:
Information is a valuable national resource and a strategic asset to the EPA. It enables the agency
to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. The agency's Information
Security program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of the EPA's
information assets. The information protection strategy includes, but is not limited to:
• Policy, procedure and practice management;
• Information security awareness, training and education; risk-based governance and
oversight;
• Weakness remediation;
• Operational security management;
• Incident response and handling; and
• Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) compliance and reporting.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Cybersecurity is a serious challenge to our nation's security and economic prosperity. The EPA
will maintain continuous monitoring of security controls in FY 2018 and address increasing security
threats and risks. Effective information security requires vigilance and the ability to adapt to new
challenges every day. The EPA will continue to manage information security risk and build upon
efforts to protect, defend and sustain its information assets through continued improvements to
training and incident response.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to sustain multi-year improvements by establishing foundational
capabilities and closing gaps in the security architecture. The EPA will close existing gaps by
building strong authentication improvements to quickly isolate and remediate suspected or known
compromised systems. These areas are cornerstone capabilities in protecting against, responding
to, and mitigating risk sources. Also for FY 2018, EPA plans to include capabilities for detecting
and protecting against attacks and, capturing and integrating threat intelligence sources. In addition
to the continued improvements, the agency will need to sustain the tools and processes implemented
to date. The security architecture, associated processes and expert personnel comprise an ecosystem
367
-------
with cross dependencies, and the system is strongest when operating as a whole. Neglecting to
implement the entire range of efforts makes protections less operational and cost effective.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue building on progress previously made to automate and advance
the information security program by:
• Increasing the use of continuous monitoring tools and processes through the Continuous
Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program; and
• Refining incident management capabilities.
The Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program, centrally managed by the Department
of Homeland Security, provides tools that will give near real-time awareness of EPA's networks
and environments. CDM consists of four implementation phases when fully implemented. Data
from the individual agency dashboards across the federal government will be aggregated into one
federal-level dashboard maintained by the CDM program which allows DHS to monitor and
respond to federal cybersecurity threats and incidents much more quickly and efficiently. The
operations and support costs of EPA's CDM Phase 1 tools and services will be partially funded by
DHS at $736 thousand in FY 2018. The agency will continue to work with DHS to implement
future phases based on capacity.
The Information Security program also will continue to detect and remediate the effects of
Advanced Persistent Threats to the agency's information and information systems. The agency will
continue to focus on training and user-awareness to foster desired behavior, asset definition and
management, compliance, incident management, knowledge and information management, risk
management and technology management. These efforts will strengthen the agency's ability to
adequately protect information assets. The final result will be an information security program that
can rely on effective and efficient controls and processes to counter cybersecurity threats.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue Phase II of the implementation of the Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requirements for logical and physical access as identified in
the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of
Federal Employees and Contractors 6 This effort ensures only authorized employees have access
to federal and federal-controlled facilities and information systems by requiring a higher level of
identity assurance.
The EPA will improve its capabilities at the internal Computer Security Incident Response
Capability (CSIRC) to support identification, response, alerting and reporting of suspicious
activity. CSIRC's mission is to protect the EPA's information assets and respond to security
incidents - actual and potential. This includes detecting unauthorized attempts to access, destroy,
or alter the EPA's data and information resources. CSIRC will maintain relationships with other
federal agencies and law enforcement entities to support the agency's mission. The incident
response capability includes components such as detection and analysis; forensics; and containment
and eradication activities.
6 For more information, please see: http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/ssa/piv.cfm.
368
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,885.0) This reduces the startup cybersecurity related improvement activities funded in
FY 2016. The agency also will prioritize further improvements in the following areas:
access controls for accounts that present the greatest risk; capabilities to identify and prevent
inappropriate access or transmission, downloading, or use of sensitive information; and ease
of regular user login process. Efforts to research and evaluate emerging technologies that
enhance the agency's cybersecurity core functions will be deferred.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA); Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA); Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA);
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); the Privacy Act of 1974; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
369
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$83,883.2
$83,790.0
$70,069.0
($13,721.0)
Science & Technology
$2,892.6
$3,083.0
$2,725.0
($358.0)
Hu:.tirtlons Substance Super/mill
SI-/.VOX. I
Sl.\ "(1.0
Sft.2JJ.lf
(S.\5(>J.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$101,743.9
$100,649.0
$81,007.0
($19,642.0)
Total Workyears
441.5
478.8
451.1
-27.7
Program Project Description:
The work performed under the Superfund appropriated Information Technology/Data Management
(IT/DM) program supports human health and the environment by providing critical IT
infrastructure and data management needed for:
1) Access to scientific, regulatory, policy and guidance information needed by the agency, the
regulated community and the public;
2) Analytical support for interpreting and understanding environmental information;
3) Exchange and storage of data, analysis and computation; and
4) Rapid, secure and efficient communication.
These areas are then organized into the following functional areas: information analysis and access;
data management and collection; information technology and infrastructure; and geospatial
information and analysis.
This program supports the maintenance of the EPA's IT and Information Management (IT/IM)
services that enable citizens, regulated facilities, states and other entities to interact with the EPA
electronically to get the information they need on demand, to understand what it means, and to
submit and share environmental data with the least cost and burden. The program also provides
support to other agency IT development projects and essential technology to agency staff, enabling
them to conduct their work in support of Superfund programs effectively and efficiently.
With the introduction of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA),
the EPA continues to revise its IT budgeting, acquisition, portfolio review, and governance
processes to adopt practices that improve delivery of capability to users, drive down lifecycle costs,
and ensure proper leveraging of shared services. The EPA's FITARA Implementation Plan7 meets
federal guidance and seeks to leverage existing processes to improve efficiency.
7 Please see: http://www.epa.gov/open/digital-strategy.
370
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA has progressively integrated new and transformative approaches to the way IT is managed
across the agency. The goal of the EPA's IT/DM services is to enhance the power of information
by delivering on demand data to the right people at the right time. In FY 2018, the program will
strive to meet EPA's IT/IM service need while continuously improving customer experiences to
allow EPA, its partners and the public to acquire, generate, manage, use and share information as
a critical resource to protect human health and the environment. To accomplish this, the program
will focus available capacity on the following areas:
• Improve the way EPA supports and manages the lifecycle of information;
• Modernize EPA's IT/IM infrastructure, applications and services;
• Empower a mobile workforce using innovative and agile solutions;
• Empower state and Tribal partnerships using innovative and agile solutions; and
• Align IT/IM resources with EPA's core program priorities.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement the E-Enterprise business strategy, a
transformative 21st century strategy - jointly governed by states, tribes, and the EPA - for
modernizing government agencies' delivery of services to support the protection of human health
and the environment. Under this strategy, the agency will continue to streamline its business
processes and systems to reduce the reporting burden on states and regulated facilities, and improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory programs for the EPA, states and tribes. IT/DM
activities will continue to facilitate limited shared services and electronic transactions with the
regulated community and external partners who routinely conduct environmental business with the
EPA. While E-Enterprise provides a structured strategy for modernizing the EPA's publicly facing
systems, foundational shared infrastructure and services will continue to be essential.
The FY 2018 budget includes funding to continue support a Digital Services team that will provide
the system design expertise needed for transforming the agency's digital services to make them
easier for the public to use and more cost-effective for the agency to build and maintain. The Digital
Service team is a key element of the EPA's FITARA Implementation Plan. In accordance with the
government wide Digital Services initiative, the EPA's digital experts will work with a limited
number of agency proj ects to support externally facing technology solutions and improve the EPA's
existing technology infrastructure. The EPA Digital Service team will continue to simplify the
digital experience that people and businesses have with their government.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement its IT acquisition review process as part of the
implementation of federal Common Baseline Controls for FITARA. The EPA's FITARA
implementation plan increases the engagement of the agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO) in
the budget process to ensure that IT needs are properly planned and resourced. In addition, FITARA
controls include an established solid communication and engagement strategy for the CIO with the
agency's programs and Regional Offices to ensure that their IT plans are well designed, directly
drive agency strategic objectives, and follow best practices. Lastly, the controls ensure the CIO
engages closely with key IT decision-makers across the EPA and fosters plans to refresh IT skills
within the agency.
371
-------
In FY 2018, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the Superfund program:
• Data Management and Collection: Data Management and Collection efforts include
support for the agency's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA responses will be
prioritized to align with available resources. Additionally, the agency enhancements of e-
Discovery technology will continue on an adjusted schedule to help meet the significant
increase of requests from external stakeholders. The EPA continues to operate a shared
service docket processing center, called E-Rulemaking, providing support to the agency's
rulemakings and administer the Paperwork Reduction Act to minimize information
collection burden on the public.
• Geospatial: In addition to meeting ongoing program needs, Geospatial information and
analysis play a critical role in the agency's ability to respond rapidly and effectively in times
of emergency. In FY 2018, the agency will continue to support the essential capabilities of
GeoPlatform, a shared technology enterprise for geospatial information and analysis. By
implementing geospatial data, applications and services, the agency is able to integrate and
interpret multiple data sets and information sources to support environmental decisions.
Specifically, during FY 2018, the agency will focus on Geoplatform data services,
dashboards and story boards based on provided geographic information to support
programmatic analysis and decision making. It also will better inform the public about the
EPA's use of grant funding to protect the environment and public health. In FY 2018, the
EPA also will continue to use the Geoplatform to publish internal and public mapping tools
and make available a number of shareable maps, geodata services, and applications. The
EPA will continue to play a leadership role in both the Federal Geographic Data Committee
and the National Geospatial Platform, working with partner agencies to share geospatial
technology capabilities across government.
• Information Access and Analysis: In FY 2018, the EPA will focus on providing core
support to agency infrastructure and utilizing tools that will harness the power of data across
the agency to drive better environmental results. The EPA Digital Analytics Platform
(EDAP)will replace much of the data management functionality in the legacy EnviroFacts
data warehouse, which is at capacity, expensive to operate, and built on relational database
technologies that do not enable users to meet many of their needs. Using powerful cloud-
based infrastructure, and by utilizing existing facility and substance registries, the EDAP
will facilitate the integration, enhancement and consistent access of environmental data
collected from across EPA programs.
In addition, the program will be closely aligned with the E-Enterprise business strategy and
digital services team to provide support throughout the data lifecycle from data
identification and collection through internal and external data presentation (Digital
Services). The program will continue to provide analysis of environmental information to
the public and the EPA's staff through My Environment, EnviroFacts, OneEPA Web, EPA
National Library Network and the EPA Intranet. The program will continue to ensure
compliance of the EPA's public systems with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
372
-------
• Information Technology and Infrastructure: In FY 2018, the agency will continue to
maintain essential information technology and infrastructure. The agency will adjust the
schedule for replacement or upgrades to keep up with technology advancement and to align
with capacity. The EPA will continue to maintain and provision desktop computing
equipment, network connectivity, e-mail and collaboration tools, application hosting,
remote access, telephone services, Web and network services, and IT-related maintenance.
In FY 2018, the agency will continue efforts to consolidate the EPA's data centers and
computer rooms and to optimize operations within the EPA's remaining data centers. The
EPA is committed to using cloud computing technologies and will have an enterprise-wide
cloud hosting service in FY 2018.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,705.0 / -3.4 FTE) This resource and FTE change is a net reduction to funding for
enterprise IT systems/tools, agency-wide services including Geographic Information
System platform support for emergency response, reduced support for regional libraries,
and IT system modernization.
• (-$3,858.0 / -6.7 FTE) This program change modifies the timeline for development of new
technologies to address agency needs such as new assistive technology tools, ability to re-
platform legacy applications, and replace end of service IT equipment that provides basic
workforce support across the agency.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Clean Water Act
(CWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA);
Government Management Reform Act (GMRA); Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA); Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA); Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
373
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
374
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$1,442.1
$1,043.0
$0.0
($1,043.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S-/
so.o
(Sf,'-/.(I)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$1,928.6
$1,717.0
$0.0
($1,717.0)
Total Workyears
6.8
6.7
0.0
-6.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) services and workplace conflict prevention. The EPA utilizes ADR as
a method for preventing or resolving conflicts prior to engaging in formal litigation. ADR includes
the provision of legal counsel, facilitation, mediation and consensus building advice and support.
This program oversees a strategically-sourced contract for these services that provides mediation,
facilitation, public involvement, training, and organizational development support to all
headquarters and regional programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$674.0 / -1.4 FTE) This eliminates the centralization of conflict prevention and ADR
program. Programs across the agency may pursue ADR support services and training
individually.
Statutory Authority:
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996; Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 111,
117, 122; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute).
375
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$49,227.0
$48,473.0
$42,565.0
($5,908.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
VoJ.-/
$577.0
s.i-i'J.n
(S 22X.H)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$49,879.4
$49,050.0
$42,914.0
($6,136.0)
Total Workyears
263.1
274.6
222.6
-52.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides legal representation, legal counseling and legal support for environmental
activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA). Funding supports legal advice needed in the Superfund program's extensive work with
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and other entities and landowners. For example, this
program provides legal analysis and advice to help inform the EPA's decisions regarding the
assessment of certain contaminants at a given Superfund site under federal law, and a party's
potential liability under CERCLA.
This program supports the EPA's Superfund work, including thousands of cleanups costing billions
of dollars, controlling high exposures to toxins that threaten the public with disease and
mortality, the enforcement of the necessary cleanups, and challenges to the EPA's actions. This
program is essential to providing the high quality legal work to ensure that the EPA's decisions are
defensible and upheld by the courts against judicial challenges.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the program will prioritize its legal support capabilities to focus support on high profile
and critical CERCLA cases for the Superfund program. The FY 2018 the program will work within
available resources to support the programs CERCLA activities will include analyzing defensibility
of agency actions, drafting significant portions of agency actions, and participating in litigation in
defense of agency actions.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$228.0 / - 0.8 FTE) The program will reduce its legal counseling and focus on litigation
support for the Superfund program's highest priority issues.
376
-------
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
377
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
378
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Environmental Program & Management
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Science & Technology
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Building and Facilities
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Hiiz.urilon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
SO'JJfiS.O
S "7./.?".«
S 5W2M
(S
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program fund the agency's rent,
utilities, and security. This program also supports centralized administrative activities and support
services, including health and safety, environmental compliance and management, facilities
maintenance and operations, space planning, sustainable facilities and energy conservation
planning and support, property management, printing, mail, and transportation services. Funding is
allocated for such services among the major appropriations for the agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to invest to reconfigure the EPA's workspaces, enabling the
agency to release office space and reduce long-term rent costs, consistent with HR 44658, the
Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016. Since FY 2012 the EPA has released over 517
thousand square feet of office space nationwide, resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of
nearly $20 million across all appropriations. These savings help offset the EPA's escalating rent
and security costs. Currently planned consolidations will allow the EPA to release another
estimated 336 thousand square feet of office space. For FY 2018, the agency is requesting $32.67
million for rent, $2.99 million for utilities, and $7.33 million for security in the Superfund
appropriation.
At the requested resource levels, the EPA will continue to manage lease agreements with GSA and
other private landlords, maintain EPA facilities, fleet, equipment, and fund costs associated with
utilities and building security needs. The EPA also will meet regulatory Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) obligations and provide health and safety training to field staff
8 For additional information, refer to: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con.gress/house-bill/4465. Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act of 2016.
379
-------
(e.g., inspections, monitoring, On-Scene Coordinators), and track capital equipment of $25,000 or
more.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,543.0 / -9.1 FTE) This reduction to agency activities in FY 2018 includes:
o support for employee wellness and worklife initiatives such as federal cost sharing for
fitness centers, health wellness and CPR/ AED training services, and libraries;
o preventative maintenance of facilities, equipment, and vehicle fleet;
o custodial services; and
o agency's mail delivery services.
• (-$1,930.0) This reduction modifies the timing of EPA's facility consolidations. Costs
associated with moves and consolidations will be limited to the minimum needs to support
core agency operations in an expedited and cost effective manner.
• (-$3,592.0) This decreases rent funding as planned space consolidations complete in FY
2018.
• (-$1,000.0) This reflects the consolidation of entry points into facilities, which will decrease
the number of security guards required.
• (-$2,000.0) This reduces funding for Transit Subsidy based on decreased level of needs
under the Superfund appropriation.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
380
-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$27,202.6
$25,248.0
$18,564.0
($6,684.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S 2.S-I5.0
S2.fi fi'J.O
S 1.5V 1.0
(S 1.2V8.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$30,047.6
$28,137.0
$20,155.0
($7,982.0)
Total Workyears
154.8
161.2
108.5
-52.7
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Financial Assistance Grants and Interagency Agreement (IA)
Management program support the management of grants and IAs, and suspension and debarment
activities. Resources in this program ensure that the EPA's management of grants and IAs meets
the highest fiduciary standards, that grant/IA funding produces measurable results for
environmental programs, and that the suspension and debarment program effectively protects the
government's business interest. These objectives are critically important for the Superfund
program, as a substantial portion of the program is implemented through IAs with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In accordance with the overarching 2016-2020 EPA Grants Management Plan (GMP), the EPA
will continue to implement activities to achieve efficiencies while enhancing quality and
accountability. The EPA will invest to modernize grant and IA IT systems by:
• The EPA will migrate away from aging Lotus Notes technology by deploying the Post-
Award and Closeout modules of the Next Generation Grants System (NGGS), which has a
low deployment time due to the system's modular architecture. NGGS will demand fewer
training resources as the system is based on existing grants system infrastructure. NGGS
relies on a flexible platform that will enable it to adapt to changing technology and business
processes and will allow it to easily integrate with other agency systems.
• Eliminating reliance on paper grant files, the agency will move to an electronic system for
grants management records.
• Strengthening grant decision-making, the EPA will enhance the capability of web-based
reporting tools to provide real-time information to grant managers.
In addition to IT-related investments, the GMP focuses on reducing the administrative burden on
the EPA and grants recipients, and on improving grants management procedures. Specifically, the
agency will continue to: 1) fully implement the streamlining reforms in OMB's Uniform Grants
381
-------
Guidance; 2) streamline the EPA's grants management by developing a comprehensive framework
of effective and efficient policies; 3) review, refine, and streamline (Lean) the processes for
Intergovernmental Review; and 4) implement an expanded Grants Place of Performance (POP)
policy, supported by a user-friendly mapping interface, to provide more accurate and useful
locational grant data.
The EPA is a recognized leader in suspension and debarment. The agency will continue to make
aggressive use of discretionary debarments and suspensions as well as statutory debarments under
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to protect the government's business interests. In FY 2018,
EPA will focus suspension and debarment activity to the most egregious violations. Congress and
federal courts have long recognized federal agencies' inherent authority and obligation to exclude
nonresponsible parties from eligibility to receive government contracts and nonprocurement
awards (for example: grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan guarantees). A number of
recent federal statutes, GAO reports, and OMB directives require that federal agencies administer
effective suspension and debarment programs in order to protect taxpayers from unscrupulous
actors.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,298.0 / -9.6 FTE) This change reflects expected efficiencies in the processing of grant
and Interagency Agreement (IA) awards, lower requested grant funding levels throughout
the agency and a review of unliquidated obligations. The EPA will target funds to core grant
and IA activities.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, § 2455.
382
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$30,174.3
$30,406.0
$24,978.0
($5,428.0)
Leaking I nderground Slorage Tanks
SI 52.5
SI 45.0
SI 38.0
(S7.0)
l/iiz.urtlon.\ Substance SH/'crfuntl
s:: j :<).(>
.S 22.-I1X.II
.S N.OMtM
(SSJS2.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$52,455.8
$52,969.0
$39,152.0
($13,817.0)
Total Workyears
276.7
304.5
214.2
-90.3
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Acquisition Management program support the agency's contracts
activities for Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, Remedial, Emergency Preparedness,
and Federal Facilities Response programs. These resources enable the agency to assess, cleanup,
prepare and respond to natural disasters and terrorist incidents, and to provide financial and
technical assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments and other federal agencies.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to process contract actions in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and guidance from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP). The EPA will maintain the EPA Acquisition System (EAS).
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement its Strategic Sourcing Program (SSP), thereby
enhancing purchase coordination, improving price uniformity and knowledge-sharing, and
leveraging small business capabilities to meet acquisition goals. The SSP also allows the agency to
research, assess, and award contract vehicles that will maximize time and resource savings. The
SSP serves as a foundation for effective financial and resource management because it simplifies
the acquisition process and reduces costs. Long term implementation of the SSP can potentially
transform the agency's acquisition process into a strategically driven function, ensuring maximum
value for every acquisition dollar spent. The agency has established a goal of obtaining at least five
percent savings for all strategically sourced categories of goods and services. Through FY 2016,
the EPA has saved approximately $8 million from strategic sourcing initiatives focused on VoIP,
laboratory supplies, print, cellular services, shipping, office supplies, equipment maintenance, and
Microsoft software. In FY 2017, the EPA anticipates between $3 to $4 million in savings.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to focus on implementing the Financial Information Technology
Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) by:
• Avoiding vendor lock-in by letting contracts with multiple vendors or confining the
scope of the contract to a limited task; and
383
-------
• Developing acquisition vehicles that support the agency in FITARA implementation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,382.0 / -59.3 FTE) This streamlines contractor support for: helpdesk services for the
EPA Acquisition System; the closeout of contracts; and existing priorities like the Defense
Contract Management Agency for Audit Services and the Virtual Acquisition Office (a
source for up-to-date government acquisition news, research, and analysis). This reduction
also eliminates funding for Contracts Management Assessment Program Reviews which
enable the agency to self-identify and remedy internal weaknesses, and the agency's
training for its acquisition community.
Statutory Authority:
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as
amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
384
-------
Human Resources Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$40,756.0
$43,185.0
$40,512.0
($2,673.0)
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S-/.5MUI
(SI.
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$45,664.5
$49,518.0
$45,092.0
($4,426.0)
Total Workyears
216.7
247.1
223.0
-24.1
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources for the Human Resources (HR) Management program support human capital
activities throughout the EPA. As requirements and initiatives change, the EPA continually
evaluates and improves the Superfund program's human resource functions in recruitment, hiring,
and workforce development to help the agency achieve its mission and maximize employee
productivity and job satisfaction.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective workforce management is critical to the EPA's ability to accomplish its mission. The
EPA's efforts in HR enterprise risk management include: attracting and retaining a high-
performing, diverse workforce; implementing training and development programs; delivering
employee services; streamlining HR processes; and strengthening performance management, labor,
and employee relations programs. The EPA will continue to support efforts that increase the quality
of core operations, improve productivity, and achieve cost savings in mission-support functions
including human capital management.
In FY 2018, the EPA will focus its workforce planning efforts to strategically reshape the agency
based on changes in program priorities and technological advances. The EPA anticipates a spike in
workforce planning needs to support the reshaping and organizational restructuring across the
agency. The agency also will continue to strengthen its performance management activities,
including developing management tools, targeting and providing training, leveraging the First Line
Supervisors Advisory Group and performing mentoring on an as-needed basis.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,753.0) This reflects a reduction for:
o Enhancements and maintenance of the EPA's HR IT Systems including HR Line of
Business (LoB), data management and analysis, troubleshooting, and change requests;
385
-------
o Maintenance of the EPA University portal that provides on-line training and
professional development; and
o Centrally-provided, non-mandatory training.
Statutory Authority:
Title 5 of the U.S.C.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-
80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
386
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$70,707.8
$72,047.0
$64,709.0
($7,338.0)
Leaking I nderground Slorage Tanks
S426.0
S423.0
S423.0
SO.O
l/iiz.urtlon.\ Substance SH/'crfuntl
.S 2IJJI.2
.S 22.0N-UI
SI 2.220.0
(SV.StS.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$92,465.0
$94,554.0
$77,358.0
($17,196.0)
Total Workyears
458.5
493.4
394.1
-99.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund
program. The EPA's OCFO recognizes and supports this continuing partnership by providing a full
array of financial management support services necessary to pay Superfund bills and recoup
cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund. The EPA's OCFO manages Superfund activities
under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program in support of integrated planning,
budget formulation and execution, financial management, performance and accountability
processes, financial cost recovery, and the systems to ensure effective stewardship of Superfund
resources. This program also implements the requirements of the Digital Accountability and
Transparency (DATA) Act of 2014 and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform
Act (FITARA) of 2015.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will continue to provide resource stewardship to ensure that all agency programs operate
with fiscal responsibility and management integrity, are efficiently and consistently delivered
nationwide, and demonstrate results. The EPA will continue to provide direction and support for
the Superfund program in financial management activities; implementing cost accounting
requirements; financial payment and support services; and Superfund-specific fiscal and
accounting services. The EPA will maintain key planning, budgeting, and financial management
activities. The EPA will sustain basic operations and maintenance of core agency financial
management systems—Compass, PeoplePlus (Time and Attendance), Budget Formulation System-
—and related financial reporting systems.
The program will support the agency's Lean efforts to continue to improve as a high performance
organization to support business process changes agencywide. To date, the agency has conducted
several Lean events that will streamline and improve financial stewardship across the agency,
including the interagency agreement management process, and the unliquidated obligation or
deobligation process. The agency is proceeding with recommendations from the software
applications Lean processes. The EPA also will continue to improve accessibility to data to support
387
-------
accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance integration, and management decision-
making.
In FY 2018, the program will adjust and reprioritize efforts in the areas of strategic planning and
budget preparation; financial reporting; transaction processing and Superfund Cost Recovery. In
addition, the DATA Act coordination and implementation will be performed within the defined
funding levels.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to use the performance metrics and OMB FedStat meetings to
answer fundamental business questions to mission-support services and opportunities for service
improvements. The program will continue to implement FITARA requirements in accordance with
the EPA's Implementation Plan.9 The Chief Information Officer will continue to be engaged
throughout the budget planning process to ensure that IT needs are properly planned and resourced
in accordance with FITARA.
The EPA is dedicated to reducing fraud, waste, and abuse and strengthening internal controls over
improper payments. Since the implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002,
the EPA has reviewed, sampled, and monitored its Superfund contract payments to protect against
erroneous payments. The agency's payment streams are consistently well under the government-
wide threshold of 1.5 percent and $10 million of estimated improper payments. The EPA conducts
risk assessments in its principal payment streams, including grants, contracts, commodities, payroll,
travel, and purchase cards. When overpayments are identified, they are promptly recovered. The
EPA has expanded its risk assessments, performed statistical sampling, set appropriate
reduction/recovery targets, and implemented corrective action plans. The agency conducts these
activities to reduce the potential for improper payments and ensure compliance with the Improper
Payments Information Act, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act
of 2010 (P.L. 111-204) and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2012 (P.L.
112-248).
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,407.0 / -44.6 FTE) This streamlines efforts in the areas of strategic planning, budget
preparation, financial reporting, and transaction processing.
• (-$3,451.0) This will modify the schedule for modernizing and modifying the agency's
Account Code Structure to improve tracking and reporting capabilities. In addition, this
focuses on maintenance of the agency's financial management systems, such as Compass
Core, Compass Data Warehouse, and PeoplePlus.
9 For more information: http://www.epa.gov/open/fitara~implementation-plan-and~chief-informatioii-officer-assignment-plan.
388
-------
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified as Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
389
-------
Workforce Reshaping
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$0.0
$0.0
$10,995.0
$10,995.0
I'.nvironmenlal Program &. Management
SO.O
SO.O
S46.719.0
S46.719.0
l/iiz.urtlon.\ Substance SH/'crfuntl
so.o
$0.0
SIO.-IJ'.O
S lOM'M
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$0.0
$0.0
$68,151.0
$68,151.0
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Superfund (SF) resources for the workforce reshaping program support organizational restructuring
efforts throughout the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To help achieve its mission, the
EPA will develop, review and analyze mission requirements and implement options to effectively
align and redistribute the agency's workforce based on program priorities, resource reallocation,
and technological advances.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective workforce reshaping is critical to the EPA's ability to accomplish its mission. The EPA
will be examining our statutory functions and processes to eliminate inefficiencies and streamline
our processes. Primary criteria will include effectiveness and accountability, as the EPA is focused
on greater value and real results. These analyses will likely create a need to significantly reshape
the workforce. The agency anticipates the need to offer voluntary early out retirement authority
(VERA) and voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP), and potentially relocation expenses, as
part of the workforce reshaping effort. The use of VERA/VSIP will increase voluntary attrition and
enable more focused support for the agency's highest priority work.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$10,437.0) In support of the reprioritization of agency activities, this increase will
support:
o Voluntary early out retirement authority (VERA)
o Voluntary separation incentive pay (VSIP)
o Workforce support costs for relocation of employees as we realign work assignments.
390
-------
Statutory Authority:
5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2) includes the statutory VERA provisions for employees covered by the Civil
Service Retirement System; 5 U.S.C. 8414(b)(1)(B) includes the statutory VERA provisions for
employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System; Section 1313(b) of the Chief
Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296, approved November 25, 2002) authorized
the VSIP option under regulations issued by OPM, as codified in sections 3521 to 3525 of title 5, United
States Code (U.S.C.).
391
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
392
-------
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
Science & Technology
$154,349.4
$139,709.0
$54,211.0
($85,498.0)
Leaking I nderground Slorage Tanks
S315.5
S319.0
S3 20.0
S1.0
Hiiz.urilon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
S
s I-/.noxti
.S 5.055.0
(SSJ50.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$169,149.2
$154,696.0
$60,689.0
($94,007.0)
Total Workyears
460.3
476.3
265.1
-211.2
Program Project Description:
This area of the EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program responds
directly to the Superfund law requirements10 for a comprehensive and coordinated federal "program
of research, evaluation, testing, development, and demonstration of alternative or innovative
treatment technologies...which may be utilized in response actions to achieve more permanent
protection of human health and welfare and the environment."
SHC's research under the Superfund appropriation provides federal, regional, and community
decision-makers with: engineering tools, methods, and information to assess current conditions at
Superfund sites; decision support tools to evaluate the implications of alternative remediation
approaches and technologies, and reuse of sites; and the latest science to support policy
development and implementation.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, resources will be used to support EPA research personnel and associated support staff
who will analyze existing research data and publish scientific journal articles to disseminate
findings associated with the data.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) for the SHC program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In
addition, the EPA meets with the BOSC and Science Advisory Board (SAB) annually for input on
topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and impact. The
EPA will be advised on its strategic research direction as part of the review of the Research and
Development program's recently-released Strategic Research Action Plans (StRAPs).11
The EPA collaborates with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White
10 42 U.S.C. § 9660(b).
11 EPA Strategic Research Action Plans, http://www.epa. go v/research/strategic-research-action-plans-2016-2019.
393
-------
House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess research performance. The
EPA supports the interagency Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment, Measuring the
Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) efforts.12
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,350.0 / -33.8 FTE) This streamlines the agency's scientific and engineering expertise
provided to address environmental problems via the three Technical Support Centers.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §§ 102,
104(i), 105(a)(4), 311(c); Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986, §§ 209(a), 403.
12 STAR METRICS, https://www.stariiietrics.nih.gov/
394
-------
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
395
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
$36,007.0
$37,530.0
$22,516.0
($15,014.0)
lltiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S2. SI. -/
S2.SJS.0
S5J0.\0
S 2.-/(>'.<)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$38,758.4
$40,368.0
$27,821.0
($12,547.0)
Total Workyears
160.7
178.9
111.6
-67.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) research program supports the risk
assessment needs of the agency's Superfund programs and regional risk assessors by providing
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs), rapid risk assessments to respond to
emergent scenarios, and technical guidance on their application. These assessment tools and
activities support risk-based management decisions at contaminated Superfund and hazardous
waste sites. Scientists in the HHRA program synthesize the available scientific information on the
potential health and environmental impacts of exposures to individual chemicals and chemical
mixtures that are in the environment to assist in the agency's chemical safety work. Implications
include:
• improvements in environmental and human health in the vicinity of Superfund sites
• reduction or reversal of damages to natural resources
• reduction of harm in emergency situations
• improved economic conditions and quality of life in communities affected by hazardous
waste sites
• improved environmental practices by industry
• advances in science and technology
Priorities for PPRTV development are based on the needs of the EPA's Land and Emergency
Management Program and are evaluated annually. Applying new data streams, read-across
approaches, and computational tools to enhance the supporting data/knowledge bases and
efficiency of derivation for PPRTV values is an active area of research in the HHRA program.
Lessons learned will be leveraged and applied to other assessments in support of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) implementation.
Communities near Superfund sites or in emergence situations also are faced with an urgent need
for coordinated assistance to assess and address issues of chemical and other environmental
contamination. Additionally, they are now presented with new sensing or monitoring information
that is difficult to interpret. The HHRA program develops approaches to respond to these emerging,
often crisis-level, chemical/substance issues with scientific information that supports quick action,
decisions and effective solutions. The HHRA program anticipates developing new assessment
396
-------
approaches by means of an expanded product line to enhance rapid response and screening
capabilities and to augment toxicity value derivation procedures for health assessments. The
program also is pursuing emerging science related to epigenetics and considerations of
susceptibility to characterize and assess cumulative risk.
Recent accomplishments include:
• Completed 12 PPRTV documents based on needs and priorities of the EPA's Superfund
program.
• Fielded more than 180 requests for scientific support on human and ecological assessment
via the Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (STSC) and Ecological Risk
Assessment Support Center (ERASC).
• Worked with the EPA's Region 3 on the West Virginia spill of 4-
methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) to develop an inhalation value in anticipation of
tank removal at the Elk River chemical spill site.
• Provided analyses to support decisions regarding the release of contaminated water into the
Animas River from the Gold King mine site, in consultation with the EPA's Region 8.
• Provided modeling support to characterize the lead levels in drinking water of Flint, MI and
on-going modeling to estimate blood lead levels from multiple routes of exposure to support
decisions on the Lead and Copper Rule for the Water Program.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
• Assessments that support policy and regulatory decisions for EPA's programs and regions,
and state agencies, will be consolidated into a portfolio of Chemical Evaluation products
that optimize the application of best available science and technology. These tailored 'fit-
for-purpose' products will be shaped for use by partners, including the EPA's program and
Regional Offices, states, and other federal agencies.
• In terms of updated Health Assessments, using realigned resources, IRIS will develop case
studies of accelerated systematic review methodologies/protocols and related automation
tools. For this pilot, existing assessments will be updated to meet focused high-priority
needs for EPA program and regional offices.
• HHRA also will collaborate with the Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research
program to link the architecture of assessment databases and literature management tools,
including Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO), with the RapidTox
Dashboard being developed by the National Center for Computational Toxicology in CSS.
This integration can be used to inform assessment development and fill gaps in assessments,
especially for data poor chemicals.
• Provide additional PPRTV assessments as prioritized by the Land and Emergency
Management Program to support risk-based decision making at Superfund sites and
hazardous waste sites, as resources allow. This work improves the EPA's ability to make
decisions and address site-related environmental health problems.
397
-------
• Continue essential technical assistance across the EPA to provide rapid risk assessments as
resources allow. This will combine problem formulation and state-of-the-art exposure
information and tools with hazard information, chiefly through the continued improvement
of the derivation basis for PPRTVs for evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund
sites, and by evaluating case-specific information related to emergent situations.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
for the CSS area that will be utilized to evaluate the research dimensions of the HHRA program as
part of its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In addition, the EPA will meet regularly
with both the Board of Scientific Counselors and the Science Advisory Board to seek their input
on topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and
impact. This includes advising the EPA on its strategic research direction with the review of the
agency Research and Development program's recently released Strategic Research Action Plans
(StRAPs).13
The EPA collaborates with several science agencies and the research community to assess our
research performance. For instance, the EPA is partnering with the National Institutes of Health,
the National Science Foundation, the DOE, and the USDA. The agency also will work with the
White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy. The EPA supports the interagency
Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment—Measuring the Effect of Research on
Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) effort. This interagency effort is
helping the EPA to more effectively measure the impact federal science investments have on
society, the environment, and the economy.14
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$497.0 / -0.5 FTE) This reallocates resources from the Superfund Health Risk Technical
Support Center and the Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center.
• (+$2,964.0 / +15.2 FTE) This realigns resources from the S&T appropriation for work
related to IRIS Assessments.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Clean Air
Act (CAA) §§ 103, 108, 109, 112; Clean Water Act (CWA) §§ 101(a)(6), 104, 105; Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) § 3(c)(2)(A); Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), §§ 4(b)(1)(B),
4(b)(2)(B).
13 EPA Strategic Research Action Plans, http://www.epa.gov/research/strategic-research-action-plans-2016-2019.
14 STAR METRICS, https://www.starmetrics.nih.gov/.
398
-------
399
-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
400
-------
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
ll(iz.iirtlon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
S210.60S. 5
SI HO.Vf, 1.0
S l-l-.212.il
(S3 J. ~-IV.ll)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$210,668.5
$180,961.0
$147,212.0
($33,749.0;
Total Workyears
263.9
243.7
225.6
-18.1
Program Project Description:
The Emergency Response and Removal program (SF Removal) is responsible for the agency's only
Primary Mission Essential Function. In the case of a national emergency, the EPA is charged with
preventing limiting, mitigating, or containing chemical, oil, radiological, biological, or hazardous
materials released during and in the aftermath of an incident. The SF Removal program is the
foundation of federal emergency response and is essential to managing risks from releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Typical situations requiring emergency
response and removal actions vary greatly in size, nature, and location, and include chemical
releases, fires or explosions, natural disasters, and other threats to people from exposure to
hazardous substances. The EPA's 24-hour-a-day response capability is a cornerstone element of
the National Contingency Plan (NCP).15
The SF Removal program provides technical assistance and outreach to industry, states, tribes, and
local communities as part of the agency's effort to ensure national safety and security for chemical
and oil responses. The EPA trains, equips, and deploys resources in order to manage, contain, and
remove contaminants. These substances, until contained or removed, have the potential to
significantly damage property, endanger public health and have critical environmental impact on
communities.
Agency On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) make up the core of the SF Removal program. These
trained and equipped EPA personnel respond to, assess, mitigate, and cleanup up environmental
releases regardless of the cause. States, local, and Tribal communities rely upon the OSC's
expertise and support to deal with environmental emergencies that are beyond their capabilities and
resources.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the SF Removal program will:
• Respond to, and provide technical assistance for, emergency responses, removal
assessments, and limited time critical response actions (non-emergency responses).
15 For additional information, refer to: https://www.epa.goy/emergeiiey-respoiise/iiatioiial~oil~aiid~hazardous~substaiices~Dolliitioii-
contingeticy-plan-ncp-overview.
401
-------
• Conduct and participate in selected multi-media training and exercises for emergency
responders. These events ensure readiness by focusing on necessary coordination and
consistency across the agency, enhance specialized technical skills and expertise, and
strengthen partnerships with state, local, Tribal, and other federal responders.
• Support the Environmental Response Team (ERT), which provides nationwide assistance
and consultation for emergency response actions, including unusual or complex incidents.
In such cases, the ERT supplies the OSC, or lead responder, with special equipment and
technical or logistical assistance.
• Identify program efficiencies and reduce administrative costs to maximize resources for
response work.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$33,749.0 / -18.1 FTE) The EPA will prioritize its resources on sites which pose an
immediate threat to human health and the environment.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Sections
104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act (CWA); and Oil Pollution Act (OPA).
402
-------
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
ll(iz.iirtlon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
SH.NX.l
$7,622.0
S'.210.0
(S-/00.(1)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$8,148.1
$7,622.0
$7,216.0
($406.0;
Total Workyears
37.1
37.4
35.7
-1.7
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Emergency Preparedness program provides for the EPA's engagement on the
National Response Team (NRT) and Regional Response Teams (RRT) where it ensures federal
agencies are prepared to respond to national incidents, threats, and major environmental
emergencies. The EPA implements the Emergency Preparedness program in coordination with the
Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies in order to deliver federal hazard
assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments.
The agency carries out its responsibility under multiple statutory authorities as well as the National
Response Framework (NRF), which provides the comprehensive federal structure for managing
national emergencies. The EPA is the designated lead for the NRF's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex - Emergency Support Function #10 which covers responsibilities for responding
to releases of hazardous materials, oil, and other contaminants that are a threat to human health and
the environment. As such, the agency participates and leads applicable interagency committees and
workgroups to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA continuously works to improve its management of emergency response assets to be better
prepared to handle large unprecedented incidents in order to increase cost effectiveness and avoid
costly cleanup actions. The Superfund Emergency Preparedness program participates in national
and local exercises and drills, coordinates with stakeholders to develop Area and Regional
Contingency Plans (ACPs), and provides technical assistance to industry, states, tribes, and local
communities. Specific activities include:
• Chair the NRT16 and co-chair the 13 RRTs. The NRT and RRTs are the only active
environmentally-focused interagency executive committees addressing oil and hazardous
substance emergencies. They serve as multi-agency coordination groups supporting
emergency responders when convened as incident specific teams.
16 For additional information, refer to: https://www.nrt.org/.
403
-------
• Participate in the development of limited, scenario-specific, full scale exercises and regional
drills designed to assess national emergency response management capabilities. These
activities will involve the RRTs, NRT, and/or principal level participants.
• Continue to implement the National Incident Management System (NIMS)17 which
provides the approach to manage incidents and works hand in hand with the NRF.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$406.0 / -1.7 FTE) This will result in a reprioritization on how the EPA's Emergency
Preparedness program supports interagency programs at the federal, state, Tribal, and local
levels in conjunction with the National Response System. This streamlines NRT and RRT
activities such as coordination, logistics, exercises, and outreach with response partners.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), §§ 104,
105, 106; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
17 For additional information, refer to: http://wwwiema.gov/iiational~incidait-managemeiit-system.
404
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
ll(iz.iirtlon.\ Substance Supcrjuiul
S21.
S2IM.\0
S/'A ,W.«
-------
As of September 30, 2016, the EPA no longer receives resources from the DoD to support
accelerated cleanup and reuse at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites. The EPA will
continue oversight work at BRAC sites that are on the NPL with appropriated resources.
In FY 2018, the Federal Facilities program will prioritize the highest risk sites and focus on
activities that bring human exposure and groundwater migration under control. In addition,
pursuant to Section 120(d) of CERCLA, the EPA manages Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket (Docket) which contains information reported by federal facilities that manage
hazardous waste or from which hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants have been or
may be released. The Docket 1) identifies all federal facilities that must be evaluated through the
site assessment process; 2) determines whether they pose a risk to human health and the
environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the NPL; and 3) provides a mechanism to make the
information available to the public.19 The Docket is updated semiannually and has over 2,300
facilities listed.
To ensure the long-term protectiveness of the cleanup remedies, the EPA will continue monitoring,
overseeing progress, and improving the quality and consistency of five-year reviews (FYRs)
conducted at NPL sites where waste has been left in place and land use is restricted. FYRs are
required under Section 121(c) of CERCLA and the EPA's role is to review the protectiveness
determination to ensure the long-term protectiveness of remedies.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,532.0 / -5.4 FTE) The EPA will continue to work with our federal partners to prioritize
efforts at federal facilities on the NPL.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), § 120.
19 The EPA developed a website called FEDFacts, where all sites are mapped and linked to available environmental information,
https: //www, epa. gov/fedfac/fedfact s.
406
-------
Superfund: Remedial
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
l/tiz.tirtlon.\ Substance Super/nut/
S.vf'A
S 500.0-ftUI
s.i-ii.snj.n
(S I5S.2-/XU)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S539J87.1
S500.048.0
S34L80.U)
(SI 58.245.0)
Total Workyears
916.6
868.8
805.1
-63.7
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Remedial program addresses many of the worst contaminated areas in the United
States by conducting investigations and then implementing long term cleanup remedies, as well as
overseeing response work conducted by potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at National Priorities
List (NPL) sites. Cleanup actions can take from a few months for relatively straight-forward soil
excavation or capping remedies to several decades for complex, large area-wide groundwater,
sediment, or mining remedies.
By addressing the risks posed by Superfund sites, the Superfund Remedial program strengthens the
economy and spurs economic growth by returning Superfund sites to productive use. While
conducting cleanup at NPL sites, Superfund construction projects can have a direct impact on
enhancing our national infrastructure while addressing harmful exposure. Cleanup work under the
Superfund Remedial program also improves property values. A study conducted by researchers at
Duke University and University of Pittsburgh found that residential property values within three
miles of Superfund sites increased between 18.6-24.5 percent when sites were cleaned up and
deleted from the NPL.20
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018 the EPA will prioritize resources to execute its federal, non-delegable responsibility to
clean up Superfund sites and protect human health and the environment. The Superfund Remedial
program will endeavor to maximize the use of special account resources collected from settlement
agreements with PRPs for response work at specific sites. As special account funds may only be
used for sites and uses specified in the settlement agreement, both special account resources and
annually appropriated resources are critical to the Superfund program to clean up Superfund sites.
More than half of non-federal sites on the final NPL do not have an associated special account and
must rely on annually appropriated funds to address those sites.
In FY 2018, the EPA is looking to identify efficiencies and reduce administrative costs to accelerate
the pace of cleanups. The EPA will prioritize ongoing fund-lead investigation, design, and
construction projects to bring human exposure and groundwater migration under control, and to
20 Gamper-Rabindran, Shanti and Christopher Timmons. 2013. "Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values?
Evidence of spatially localized benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65(3): 345-360.
407
-------
facilitate reuse and redevelopment of Superfund sites while scaling back assessment activities,
grants to communities and states, and revisions to existing guidance documents. The EPA will
continue its statutory responsibility to provide oversight of PRP-lead activities at Superfund sites,
consistent with legal settlement documents, and five-year review activities required by CERCLA.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$158,245.0 / -63.7 FTE) The EPA will prioritize resources on NPL sites that present the
highest risk to human health and the environment, while modifying timelines for completing
RI/FS, remedial design and new construction projects for other sites, and reducing
discretionary activities.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
408
-------
Program Area: Superfund Special Accounts
409
-------
Superfund Special Accounts
Background
Superfund special accounts help pay for cleanup at the sites designated in individually negotiated
settlement agreements. Each account is set up separately and distinctly and may only be used for
the sites and uses outlined in the settlement(s) with the potentially responsible party(ies) (PRP).
Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) authorizes the EPA to retain and use funds received pursuant to a settlement
agreement with a PRP to carry out the purpose of that agreement. Special accounts are sub-
accounts in the Superfund Trust Fund. Pursuant to the specific agreements, which typically take
the form of an Administrative Order on Consent or Consent Decree, the EPA uses special account
funds to finance site-specific CERCLA response actions at the site for which the account was
established. Through the use of special accounts, the EPA ensures responsible parties pay for
cleanup so that annually appropriated resources from the Superfund Trust Fund are generally
conserved for sites where no viable or liable PRPs can be identified. Of the 1,337 Superfund sites
listed as final on the National Priorities List, more than half do not have special account funds
available for use. As special account funds may only be used for sites and uses specified in the
settlement agreement, both special account resources and annually appropriated resources are
critical to the Superfund program to clean up Superfund sites.
Special account funds are used to conduct many different site-specific CERCLA response actions,
including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the nature and extent of contamination
and the appropriate remedy, design, construction and implementation of the remedy, enforcement
activities, and post-construction activities. The EPA also may provide special account funds as an
incentive to another PRP(s) who agrees to perform additional work beyond the PRP's allocated
share at the site, which the EPA might otherwise have to conduct using appropriated resources.
Because response actions may take many years, the full use of special account funds also may take
many years. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and in accordance with EPA policy, once site-
specific work is complete and site risks are addressed, special account funds may be used to
reimburse the EPA for site-specific costs incurred using appropriated resources (i.e.,
reclassification), allowing the latter resources to be allocated to other sites. Any remaining special
account funds are transferred to the Superfund Trust Fund in accordance with the settlement
agreement and EPA policy, where they are available for future appropriation by Congress to
further support response work.
FY 2016 Special Account Activity
Since the inception of special accounts through the end of FY 2016, the EPA has collected more
than $6.5 billion from PRPs and earned approximately $446.1 million in interest. Approximately
53 percent of the funds have been disbursed or obligated for response actions at sites and plans
have been developed to guide the future use of the remaining 47 percent of available special
account funds. In addition, at sites with no additional work planned or costs to be incurred by the
EPA, the EPA has transferred approximately $29.1 million to the Superfund Trust Fund. As of the
end of FY 2016, approximately $3.2 billion has been disbursed for site response actions and $464.6
million has been obligated but not yet disbursed.
410
-------
The cumulative amount available in special accounts decreased from $3.45 billion available at the
end of FY 2015 to $3.28 billion available at the end of FY 2016. The agency continues to receive
site-specific settlement funds that are placed in special accounts each year, so progress on actual
obligation and disbursement of funds may not be apparent upon review solely of the cumulative
available balance. In FY 2016, the EPA received nearly $166 million for deposit into special
accounts and disbursed and obligated over $300 million.
Special accounts vary in size. A limited set represent the majority of the funds available. At the
end of FY 2016, 4 percent of open accounts had greater than $10 million available and hold more
than 74 percent of all available funds at open accounts. There are many accounts with lower
available balances. 74 percent of all open accounts have up to $1 million available and represent
only 5 percent of available funds at all open accounts.
The balance of more than $3.28 billion is not equivalent to an annual appropriation. The funds
collected under settlements are intended to finance future cleanup work at particular sites for the
length of the project. The EPA is carefully managing those funds that remain available for site
response work and develops plans to utilize the available balance. The EPA will continue to plan
the use of funds received to conduct site-specific response activities, or reclassify and/or transfer
excess funds to the Superfund Trust Fund to make annually appropriated funds available for use
at other Superfund sites.
For some Superfund sites, although funds are readily available in a special account, remedial action
may take time to initiate and complete. This is due to site specific conditions such as the specific
requirements for special account use set forth in the settlement agreement, the stage of site cleanup,
the viability of other responsible parties to conduct site cleanup, and the nature of the site
contamination. The EPA has plans to spend more than $1.3 billion of currently available special
account funds over the next 5 years, but funds also are planned much further into the future to
continue activities such as conducting five year reviews or remedy optimization where waste has
been left in place.
In FY 2016, the EPA disbursed and obligated approximately $306.7 million from special accounts
for response work at more than 690 Superfund sites. Some examples include more than $65.5
million to support work at the Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex in Idaho, at least
$23.7 million for the New Bedford site in Massachusetts, approximately $29.3 million for the
Libby Asbestos Site in Montana, and $20.8 million for the Welsbach & General Gas Mantle
(Camden Radiation) site in New Jersey. In addition, a special account was established in FY 2016
for the Gorst Creek - Bremerton Auto Wrecking Landfill site and approximately $19.2 million of
the $24.8 million deposited was obligated and/or disbursed for site response work. Without special
account funds being available, appropriated funds would have been necessary for these response
actions to be funded. In other words, the EPA was able to fund $306.7 million in response work at
sites in addition to the work funded through appropriated funds obligated or disbursed in FY 2016.
The summary charts below provide additional information on the status of special accounts.
Exhibit 1 illustrates the cumulative status of open and closed accounts, FY 2016 program activity,
and planned multi-year uses of the available balance. Exhibit 2 provides the prior year (FY 2016),
current year (FY 2017), and estimated future budget year (FY 2018) activity for special accounts.
Exhibit 3 provides prior year data (FY 2016) by the EPA Regional Offices to exhibit the
geographic use of the funds.
411
-------
Exhibit 1: Summary of FY 2016 Special Account Transactions
and Cumulative Multi-Year Plans for Using Available Special Account Funds
Number of
Account Status1
Accounts
Cumulative Open
1,014
Cumulative Closed
321
l'"Y 2016 Special Account Activity
S in Thousands
Beginning Available Balance
$3,450,650.4
FY 2016 Activities
+ Receipts
$165,557.7
- Transfers to Superfund Trust Fund (Receipt Adjustment)
($1,290.3)
+ Net Interest Earned
$881.3
- Net Change in Unliquidated Obligations
($70,555.3)
- Disbursements - For EPA Incurred Costs
($231,522.8)
- Disbursements - For Work Party Reimbursements under Final Settlements
($4,595.3)
- Reclassifications
($26,009.2")
End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance2
$3,283,116.4
\
ulli-Year Plans for KOI-'Y 2016 Available Balance*
S in Thousands
2016 EOFY Available Balance
$3,283,116.4
- Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities based on Current Site Plans4
$3,120,862.9
- Estimates for Potential Disbursement to Work Parties Identified in Final
Settlements5
$45,591.6
- Estimates for Reclassifications for FYs 2017-20196
$72,661.8
- Estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund for FYs 2017-20196
$33,498.4
- Available Balance to be Planned for Site-Specific Response7
$10,501.8
1 FY 2016 data is as of 10/01/2016. The Beginning Available Balance is as of 10/01/2015.
2 Numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding.
3Planning data were recorded in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) as of 11/04/2016 in reference to
special account available balances as of 10/01/2016.
4 i
Estimates for EPA Future Site Activities" includes all response actions that the EPA may conduct or oversee in the
future, such as removal, remedial, enforcement, post-construction activities as well as allocation of funds to facilitate a
settlement to encourage PRPs to perform the cleanup. Planning data are multi-year and cannot be used for annual
comparisons.
5 i
Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties Identified in Finalized Settlements" includes those funds that
have already been designated in a settlement document, such as a Consent Decree or Administrative Order on Consent, to
be available to a PRP for reimbursements but that have not yet been obligated.
6 l
Reclassifications" and "Transfers to the Trust Fund" are estimated for three FYs only. These amounts are only
estimates and may change as the EPA determines what funds are needed to complete site-specific response activities.
7 These include resources received by the EPA at the end of the fiscal year and will be assigned for site-specific response
activities.
412
-------
Exhibit 2: Actual and Estimated Special Account Transactions FY 2016 - FY 2018
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 20IS
actual
estimate
estimate
S in Thousands
Beginning Available Balance
$3,450,650.4
$3,283,116.4
$3,266,371.4
Receipts1
$165,557.7
$250,000.0
$250,000.0
Transfers to Trust Fund (Receipt
Adjustment)2
($1,290.3)
($1,775.0)
($1,775.0)
Net Interest Earned3
$881.3
$30,000.0
$33,000.0
Net Obligations2 4
($306,673.5)
($262,600.0)
($262,600.0)
Reclassifications2
C$26.009.2")
C$32.370.0")
C$32.370.0")
End of Year Available Balance5
$3,283,116.4
$3,266,371.4
$3,252,626.4
'The estimates for Receipts are in line with typical averages.
2The estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund, Net Obligations, and Reclassifications are based on a 3-year historical
average.
3Net interest earned projections for FY 2017 and FY 2018 are estimated utilizing economic assumptions for the
FY 2018 President's Budget. At the end of FY 2015, the agency worked with the Department of Treasury to
create a new point account for Superfund special accounts in the Superfund Trust Fund. In FY 2016, $26.4
million in interest was earned on the special account funds invested in the Superfund Trust Fund. However, there
was a time lag for those funds to be captured in the agency's system and made available for use.
4Net Obligations reflect special account funds no longer available for obligation, excluding reclassifications and
receipts transferred to the Trust Fund.
5Numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding.
Exhibit 3: FY 2016 Special Account Transactions by EPA Regional Offices
$ in Thousands
IScuinninu
A\;iil;il)k'
ISillillKT1
Km'ipls
Ti'iinsfcrs lo
Trusl I niitl
(Receipt
AdjllSlllKMII)
Vl
IllU'lVSl
r.;inied:
Vl
OhliUiilions
Ki\'l;issirk';ilions
l-'ntl of Year
A\;iil;il)k'
liillilllCl*'
Rcuion 1
S3M.337 7
Sl).5 14 O
(S42 7)
S1 58 7
(S32.l)<)2 3)
(S3.SIS 7)
$337,247.2
Region 2
$501,685.9
$36,474.5
($75.7)
$67.8
($52,755.3)
($3,842.4)
$481,554.8
Region 3
$112,825.2
$12,661.8
($334.1)
$51.9
($6,182.3)
($4,629.9)
$114,392.6
Region 4
$67,554.8
$5,402.3
($416.1)
($28.9)
($3,237.6)
($1,034.1)
$68,240.5
Region 5
$388,432.0
$16,161.4
($420.3)
$127.2
($11,654.1)
($1,081.0)
$391,565.3
Region 6
$73,334.7
$16,045.6
$0.0
$30.5
($8,732.2)
($795.0)
$79,883.7
Region 7
$154,425.3
$2,670.3
($1.1)
$90.7
($8,793.1)
($251.5)
$148,140.6
Region 8
$247,453.3
$14,333.2
($0.2)
$115.6
($46,066.1)
($525.3)
$215,310.5
Region 9
$1,300,269.3
$17,888.6
$0.0
$151.0
($26,964.1)
($10,031.3)
$1,281,313.5
Region 10
$240,332.3
$34,405.4
$0.0
$116.6
($109,386.4)
$0.0
$165,467.9
Total
$3,450,650.4
$165,557.7
($1,290.3)
$881.3
($306,673.5)
($26,009.2)
$3,283,116.4
1 FY 2016 data is as of 10/01/2016. The Beginning Available Balance is as of 10/01/2015.
2 Negative interest is a result of a transfer of interest to the Superfund Trust Fund when funds in an account are no longer needed for
future site response work. Due to the time lag in posting of the agency's FY 2016 earned interest of $26.4 million, interest earned was
not applied to the site or regional level resulting in this anomaly.
3Numbers may not add due to rounding.
413
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table 416
Program Area: Enforcement 418
Civil Enforcement 419
Program Area: Operations and Administration 420
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 421
Acquisition Management 422
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 423
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 424
LUST / UST 425
LUST Cooperative Agreements 427
LUST Prevention 429
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities 430
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities 431
414
-------
415
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
$93,702.6
$91,766.0
$47,429.0
($44,337.0)
Total Workyears
50.4
54.1
40.7
-13.4
Bill Language: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities
authorized by subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, $47,429,000 to remain available until
expended, of which $47,429,000 shall be for carrying out leaking underground storage tank
cleanup activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act: Provided, That
the Administrator is authorized to use appropriations made available under this heading to
implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide financial assistance to federally
recognized Indian tribes for the development and implementation of programs to manage
underground storage tanks.
Program Projects in LUST
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$758.0
$619.0
$559.0
($60.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$426.0
$423.0
$423.0
$0.0
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Acquisition Management
$152.5
$145.0
$138.0
($7.0)
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$1,363.7
$1,350.0
$1,346.0
($4.0)
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
$9,159.3
$9,222.0
$6,364.0
($2,858.0)
LUST Cooperative Agreements
$55,832.9
$54,935.0
$38,840.0
($16,095.0)
LUST Prevention
$26,273.2
$25,321.0
$0.0
($25,321.0)
416
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
$91,265.4
$89,478.0
$45,204.0
($44,274.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$315.5
$319.0
$320.0
$1.0
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$315.5
$319.0
$320.0
$1.0
TOTAL, EPA
$93,702.6
$91,766.0
$47,429.0
($44,337.0)
417
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
418
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$2,444.0
$2,408.0
$2,266.0
($142.0)
Environmental Program & Management
$174,120.9
$171,051.0
$140,470.0
($30,581.0)
l.cukiiifi I nilcrxrouml Slonixc Ituiks
s'ts.n
soiv.n
S 55V.0
(SOO.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$177,322.9
$174,078.0
$143,295.0
($30,783.0)
Total Workyears
1,064.6
1,080.4
858.7
-221.7
Program Project Description:
To protect our nation's groundwater and drinking water from petroleum releases from Underground
Storage Tanks (UST), the Civil Enforcement program provides guidance, technical assistance, and
training to promote and enforce cleanups at sites with UST systems.1 The Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program uses its Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) resources to
oversee cleanups by responsible parties.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with states and tribes on a case-by-case basis to prioritize LUST
enforcement goals for cleanup.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$60.0 / -0.6 FTE) The EPA will target funds to highest priority sites.
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Prevention Act; Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act; National
Environmental Policy Act; Atomic Energy Act; Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/swerust 1 /cat/index.htm.
419
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
420
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Environmental Program & Management
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Science & Technology
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Building and Facilities
S37.184.2
S35.573.0
S33.377.0
(S2.196.0)
1.caking I 'iitlcrgromitl Slomgc I tuiks
S ~,S.\2
$782.0
S ~,S.\0
S.1.0
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program in the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) appropriation supports the agency's rent, transit subsidy, and facilities management
services. Funding is allocated for such services among the major appropriations for the agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The agency will continue to conduct rent reviews and verify monthly billing statements for its lease
agreements with the General Services Administration and other private landlords. For FY 2018, the
EPA is requesting a total of $0.60 million for rent in the LUST appropriation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3.0) This increases funding to support basic operations and maintenance costs for the
EPA facilities nationwide. While the resources are minimal, the funds are essential to
support the agency, its mission, and its workforce.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
421
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$30,174.3
$30,406.0
$24,978.0
($5,428.0)
1.caking I 'nthrgronnd Sioragc Tanks
S J 52.5
SI-15.0
SIJS.O
(S'.O)
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$22,129.0
$22,418.0
$14,036.0
($8,382.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$52,455.8
$52,969.0
$39,152.0
($13,817.0)
Total Workyears
276.7
304.5
214.2
-90.3
Program Project Description:
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) resources in the Acquisition Management program
support the agency's contract activities.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Acquisition Management resources in LUST support information technology needs and the training
and development of the EPA's acquisition workforce.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7.0) Resource changes reflect a minimal reduction in contractual resources from more
effective business practices in the Acquisition Management program.
Statutory Authority:
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as
amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
422
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$70,707.8
$72,047.0
$64,709.0
($7,338.0)
1.caking I lulcigroniul Storngc Tanks
N -126.0
$423.0
S-I2XO
S 0.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$21,331.2
$22,084.0
$12,226.0
($9,858.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$92,465.0
$94,554.0
$77,358.0
($17,196.0)
Total Workyears
458.5
493.4
394.1
-99.3
Program Project Description:
The EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program. Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting
and Finance program support the management of integrated planning, budgeting, financial
management, performance and accountability processes, and systems to ensure effective
stewardship of LUST resources. This includes developing, managing, and supporting a
performance management system consistent with the Government Performance and Results
Modernization Act for the agency that involves strategic planning and accountability for
environmental, fiscal, and managerial results; providing policy, systems, training, reports, and
oversight essential for the financial operations of the EPA; managing the agencywide Working
Capital Fund; providing financial payment and support services for the EPA through three finance
centers, specialized fiscal and accounting services for the LUST programs; and managing the
agency's annual budget process.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management of the LUST program
through the use of routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling, and other evaluation tools.
Building on the work begun in previous years, the EPA will continue to monitor and strengthen
internal controls with a focus on sensitive payments and property. In addition, structured and
targeted use of financial systems that include funds control and oversight of expenses in the LUST
program has led to a better understanding of program impacts as well as increased efficiencies.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-0.7 FTE) This reduces ad hoc analyses as part of LUST financial management efforts.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified as Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
423
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
424
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Environmental Program & Management
$11,083.4
$11,273.0
$5,612.0
($5,661.0)
/.diking I 'mlcrxromul Storage Tanks
S<). 150.3
$9,222.0
ShJM.t)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$20,242.7
$20,495.0
$11,976.0
($8,519.0)
Total Workyears
100.6
108.1
68.8
-39.3
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) resources in the LUST / Underground Storage
Tank (UST) program ensure that petroleum contamination is properly assessed and cleaned up
which is different from the LUST/UST program in the Environmental Program and Management
account which helps prevent releases of petroleum from UST. Under this program, the EPA issues,
monitors, and oversees LUST cleanup cooperative agreements to states.2 The EPA also provides
technical assistance and training to states and tribes on how to conduct cleanups and improve the
efficiency of state programs. In addition, the EPA has direct implementation authority and
responsibilities in Indian country. In that role, the EPA oversees cleanups by responsible parties,
conducts site assessments, remediates contaminated water and soil, and provides alternative sources
of drinking water when needed.
The EPA's funding for Indian country is the primary source of money for these activities. With few
exceptions, tribes do not have independent program resources to pay for assessing and cleaning up
UST releases, and in many cases, there are no responsible parties available to pay for the cleanups
at sites in Indian country.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will:
• Work with states and tribes within available resources to implement strategies to reduce
the number of sites that have not reached cleanup completion, and to address new releases
as they continue to be confirmed.
• Provide targeted training to states and tribes, such as remediation process optimization and
rapid site assessment techniques.
• Monitor the soundness of financial mechanisms, in particular insurance and state cleanup
funds that serve as financial assurance for LUST releases. The EPA works with states to
seek ways to cover and control remediation costs.
2 States as referenced here also include the District of Columbia and five territories as described in the definition of state in the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
425
-------
• Provide support in Indian country for site assessments, investigations, and remediation of
high priority sites; enforcement against responsible parties; cleanup of soil and
groundwater; alternate water supplies; cost recovery against UST owners and operators;
oversight of responsible party lead cleanups; and technical expertise and assistance to Tribal
governments.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,858.0 / -12.1 FTE) This reduction will focus cleanups of LUST sites in Indian country
on the highest priority sites and streamline our efforts to provide subject matter and
technical expertise to states and tribes.
Statutory Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 8001, 9001-9014.
426
-------
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
1.diking I 'mlcrxromul Storage Tanks
S 5-I.VJxO
SJS.S-IO.O
(SIO.O'JxO)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$55,832.9
$54,935.0
$38,840.0
($16,095.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program ensures that petroleum contamination is
properly assessed and cleaned up by providing states3 with funding to assess and clean up these
releases. Releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks (UST) can contaminate
groundwater, the drinking water source for many Americans.
LUST funding supports states in managing, overseeing, and enforcing cleanups at LUST sites. This
is achieved by focusing on increasing the efficiency of LUST cleanups nationwide, leveraging
private and state resources, and enabling community redevelopment. Cleaning up LUST sites,
which are often located along heavily travelled roads, makes them available for redevelopment
opportunities and can return abandoned, blighted sites to productive uses such as retail, restaurants,
pharmacies, and health clinics.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 requires that states receiving LUST Cooperative
Agreements funding meet certain release prevention requirements, such as inspecting every facility
at least once every three years. With the proposed elimination of the LUST Prevention and UST
STAG funding, the EPA may prioritize LUST Cleanup Cooperative Agreements with states that
maintain compliance with EPAct requirements.
In FY 2018 some states may perform a more limited version of their core cleanup work. Some
states also may be able to pursue strategies to maximize the effectiveness or efficiency in
protectively completing cleanups and reducing their backlogs.
Approximately 71,000 releases remain that have not reached cleanup completion. In addition,
thousands of new releases are discovered each year.4 The EPA and state programs will consider
best practices and implement strategies to reduce the backlog by targeting high priority sites and
examining caseloads to look for sites that are ready for closure.
3 States as referenced here also include the District of Columbia and five territories as described in the definition of state in the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
4 For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/iist/iist-performance-measures.
427
-------
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$16,095.0) This change reflects a focus on cleaning up the highest priority sites.
Statutory Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 9003(h)(7).
428
-------
LUST Prevention
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
1.caking I lulcigroniul Storngc Tanks
S20.2 -.1.2
S 25J21.0
so.o
(S 25 J 21.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S26.27.V2
S25J21.0
so.o
(S25.321.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Prevention program works to ensure that
groundwater is protected from petroleum and associated chemicals leaking from underground
storage tanks (USTs), while the LUST Cooperative Agreement program provides funding to states
to assess and clean up LUST sites. This program has provided funding to states,5 tribes, and/or
intertribal consortia to inspect, prevent releases, ensure compliance with federal and state laws, and
enforce these laws for the 561,000 federally regulated active USTs. The Energy Policy Act (EPAct)
of 2005 requires the EPA or states to inspect every UST once every three years.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. States could elect to maintain core
program work with state resources rather than federal.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$25,321.0) This funding change eliminates the LUST Prevention grant program.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, § 2007(f); Energy Policy Act, § 9011.
5 States as referenced here also include the District of Columbia and five territories as described in the definition of state in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
429
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
430
-------
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
Science & Technology
$154,349.4
$139,709.0
$54,211.0
($85,498.0)
l.cukiiifi I nilcrxrouml Slonixc Ituiks
S J 1x5
S3IV.0
S3 20.0
S1.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$13,622.3
$14,005.0
$5,655.0
($8,350.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$169,149.2
$154,696.0
$60,689.0
($94,007.0)
Total Workyears
460.3
476.3
265.1
-211.2
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program under the Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) appropriation provides federal, regional, and community
decision-makers with tools, methods, and information to prevent and control pollution at LUST
sites. Specifically, this research enables decision-makers to better:
• Assess sites and evaluate the implications of alternative remediation techniques, policies,
and management actions to assess and cleanup leaks at fueling stations.
• Identify the environmental impacts and unintended consequences of existing and new
biofuels available in the marketplace.
• Protect America's land and groundwater resources and drinking water supplies that could be
impacted by the nation's approximately 560,000 underground fuel storage tanks6.
Recent accomplishments include:
• Developing Field Screening Methodology to Assess Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: The
SHC program has developed field screening methods to assist in the implementation of the
EPA Office of Land and Emergency Response's (OLEM) guide for petroleum vapor
intrusion. The screening methodology and software tool provides site managers with an
economical and practical approach for addressing petroleum vapor intrusion in their site
cleanup plans.
• Analyzing Three National Databases to Assess Variability in Fuel Composition: In
recent years, varying fuel composition has been associated with vapor and liquid releases
from underground storage tanks and corrosion of tank components. SHC's study increases
the EPA's understanding on the fate and transport of contaminants from LUST sites and
their potential impact on groundwater contamination and vapor intrusion.
6 For more information, please visit: https://www.epa. gov/ust.
431
-------
• Estimating Site Densities of Private Domestic Wells (PDWs): PDWs are not subject to
the testing requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and are therefore more susceptible
to contamination. For public health and planning purposes, it is important to determine the
locations of high density PDW use. This information on PDWs assists states in evaluating
the degree of urgency in their inspections to address potential vulnerabilities to
communities that are reliant on these drinking water supplies.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to conduct research on contaminated sites to assist the agency
and the states in addressing the backlog of sites for remediation. This research will help
communities characterize and remediate contaminated sites at an accelerated pace and lower costs
while reducing human health and ecological impacts. Resulting methodologies and tools will help
localities and states return properties to productive use, thus supporting the agency mission of
protecting human health and the environment in the context of communities.
Also, in FY 2018, the EPA's scientists will continue to work with the Underground Storage Tanks
program to deliver improved characterization and remediation methods for fuels released from
leaking underground storage tanks. Research also will address contaminant plume elongation and
the associated risks to communities from the many underground storage tanks at fueling stations
located near residences and residential water supplies. This research will inform tool development
to assist communities and states to determine what remediation is needed to protect local ground
water resources and reduce the potential for vapor intrusion into buildings. These tools will
ultimately reduce costs to communities while better protecting future drinking water resources and
preventing vapor intrusion.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) for the SHC program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In
addition, the EPA meets with the BOSC and the Science Advisory Board (SAB) annually for input
on topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and
impact. The EPA will be advised on its strategic research direction as part of the review of the
Research and Development program's recently-released Strategic Research Action Plans
(StRAPs)7
The EPA collaborates with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White
House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess research performance. The
EPA supports the interagency Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment, Measuring the
Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) efforts.8
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
7 EPA Strategic Research Action Plans, fattps://www.epa. gov/research/strategic-research-action-plans-2016-2019.
8 STAR METRICS, https://www.starmetrics.nih.gov/.
432
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.0) This increases research to characterize and remediate contaminated leaking
underground storage tank sites.
Statutory Authority:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, §§ 1002, 1006, 8001; Safe Drinking Water Act, §
1442.
433
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Oil Spill
Resource Summary Table 436
Program Area: Compliance 437
Compliance Monitoring 438
Program Area: Enforcement 440
Civil Enforcement 441
Program Area: Oil 443
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response 444
Program Area: Operations and Administration 446
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 447
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities 448
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities 449
434
-------
435
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Inland Oil Spill Programs
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Budget Authority
$18,682.8
$18,175.0
$15,717.0
($2,458.0)
Total Workyears
93.1
98.3
76.5
-21.8
Bill Language: Inland Oil Spill Programs
For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibilities under
the Oil Pollution Act of1990, $15,717,000, to be derivedfrom the Oil Spill Liability trust fund, to
remain available until expended.
Program Projects in Oil Spills
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$143.3
$139.0
$124.0
($15.0)
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$2,444.0
$2,408.0
$2,266.0
($142.0)
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
$14,553.9
$14,382.0
$12,144.0
($2,238.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$18,682.8
$18,175.0
$15,717.0
($2,458.0)
436
-------
Program Area: Compliance
437
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill I'ro^nims
S/7.i..?
N/.?«.«
S124.0
(Sl.\0)
Environmental Program & Management
$103,713.4
$101,472.0
$86,431.0
($15,041.0;
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$844.1
$993.0
$605.0
($388.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$104,700.8
$102,604.0
$87,160.0
($15,444.0)
Total Workyears
510.4
539.6
432.4
-107.2
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Monitoring program promotes compliance with the nation's environmental laws.
Compliance monitoring is comprised of a variety of tools and activities that states and the EPA use
to identify whether regulated entities are in compliance with environmental laws enacted by
Congress, as well as applicable regulations and permit conditions. In addition, compliance
monitoring activities, such as inspections and investigations, are conducted to determine whether
conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment.
The EPA maintains and oversees the Compliance Monitoring program by integrating the data from
the Facility Response Plans (FRP) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
systems into the EPA Integrated Compliance Information System. As a result of this data
integration, the EPA is able to focus compliance monitoring resources on areas of highest risk and
increase transparency to the public. It also provides a more complete set of information for this
program and improves data quality.
The Clean Water Act Section 311 compliance monitoring program for SPCC is designed to assure
compliance with the governing spill prevention regulations. The Section 311 FRPs compliance
monitoring program uses tools and strategies to verify that regulated facilities prepare for and are
able to respond to any oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018 the agency will streamline its Compliance Monitoring program.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$15.0 / -0.1 FTE) This streamlines the Compliance Monitoring program.
438
-------
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended
by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
439
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
440
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
S2.444.0
S 2.40S.0
S2.2M.O
(SI 42.0)
I'.nviionmental Program &. Management
SI 74,120.9
SI 71.051.0
SI 40.470.0
(S30,581.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$758.0
$619.0
$559.0
($60.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$177,322.9
$174,078.0
$143,295.0
($30,783.0)
Total Workyears
1,064.6
1,080.4
858.7
-221.7
Program Project Description:
The EPA Civil Enforcement program's goal is to ensure compliance with the nation's
environmental laws to protect human health and the environment. The program collaborates with
the United States Department of Justice, states, local agencies, and Tribal governments to ensure
consistent and fair enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. The Civil Enforcement
program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious
violators of environmental laws.
The Civil Enforcement program's enforcement of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), is designed to ensure compliance with the
prohibition against oil and hazardous substance spills, as well as the oil spill prevention, response
planning, and other regulatory requirements. The EPA's Civil Enforcement program develops
policies, issues administrative orders or penalty actions, and/or refers civil judicial actions to the
Department of Justice to address spills, violations of spill prevention, response planning regulations
and other violations (e.g., improper dispersant use or noncompliance with orders). The program
also assists in the recovery of cleanup costs expended by the government. The program provides
support for field investigations of spills, Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC),
Facility Response Plan (FRP) and other requirements.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will streamline the Civil Enforcement program, prioritize resources to achieve
regulatory compliance, and address oil or hazardous substance spills in violation of the statute and
prevent future spills. Civil Enforcement efforts will focus on facilities where enforcement will
promote deterrence, require action to address spill causes, and confirm that spills are cleaned up
and mitigated.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
441
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$142.0 / -0.9 FTE) This streamlines enforcement efforts under the Oil Pollution Act of
1990.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute); Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act.
442
-------
Program Area: Oil
443
-------
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Program Area: Oil
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill I'ro^nims
S l-l..\\1.V
SNJX2.0
SI 2. N-I.I)
(S2.23SM)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$14,553.9
$14,382.0
$12,144.0
($2,238.0;
Total Workyears
79.0
83.1
62.3
-20.8
Program Project Description:
The Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response program protects the American people by
preventing, preparing for, responding to, and monitoring inland oil spills. The EPA is the lead
federal responder for inland oil spills, including transportation related spills from pipelines, trucks,
railcars, and other transportation systems. In addition, the program may provide technical
assistance, assets, and outreach to industry, states, and local communities as part of the agency's
effort to ensure national safety and security for chemical and oil incidents.1
There are approximately 540,000 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) facilities,
including a subset of 4,600 Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities identified as high risk due to
their size and location. The Oil Pollution Act requires certain facilities that store and use oil to
prepare response plans that are reviewed by the EPA to ensure availability of response resources in
the event of a discharge.
To minimize the potential impacts to human health and the environment, the agency will target
facilities that pose the highest risk. The agency currently inspects approximately 0.1 percent of
SPCC facilities per year. In FY 2016, the EPA found that 64 percent of FRP facilities and 91 percent
of SPCC facilities inspected were out of compliance due to inadequate prevention and response
plans. Inspections are essential in ensuring that facility staff is knowledgeable about prevention and
response plans, and quickly able to put these plans into action.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response program will:
• Inspect oil facilities to ensure compliance with preventive measures. Inspections involve
reviewing the facility's preparedness and response plans, discussing key aspects of these
plans with facility staff, and conducting unannounced exercises that test the facility owner's
ability to put these preparedness and response plans into action. The EPA will focus
inspections at high risk FRP facilities.
1 For additional information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevetition-and-preparedness-regulations.
444
-------
• Maintain the National Contingency Plan's Subpart J product schedule, which identifies a
list of products that may be used to clean oil spills.
• Maintain the National Oil Database, which compiles data for the program. The database
manages information obtained from new and historical inspections and has streamlined the
process for assisting facilities with compliance and equip inspectors with more efficient
inspection processes.
• Deliver required annual oil spill inspector training to federal and state inspectors.
The EPA's responsibility to respond to inland oil spills within 12 hours cannot be delegated or
shared with any other federal agency, state, or local government. The EPA accesses the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, to obtain reimbursement funds for site
specific oil spill response activities. In FY 2016, the EPA responded to approximately 110 oil spills
across the nation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,238.0 / -20.8 FTE) This decision focuses SPCC and FRP facility inspections on
facilities that pose the highest risk, reduces specialized training opportunities for agency
federal On Scene Coordinators, and reduces updates to regional Area Contingency Plans.
Statutory Authority:
The Clean Water Act, § 311 and the Oil Pollution Act.
445
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
446
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill Programs
S (>-').(>
$583.0
S'J'.O
I'.nviionmental Program &. Management
S304,456.9
S310,948.0
S301,001.0
(S9,947.0)
Science & Technology
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Building and Facilities
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$483,606.7
$490,232.0
$463,254.0
($26,978.0)
Total Workyears
332.9
357.7
312.2
-45.5
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program in the Inland Oil Spill Response
appropriation supports the agency's rent, transit subsidy, and facility operations. Funding is
allocated for such services among the major appropriations for the agency.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The agency will continue to conduct rent reviews and verify monthly billing statements for its lease
agreements with the General Services Administration and other private landlords. For FY 2018, the
EPA is requesting $0,496 million for rent in the Inland Oil Spills appropriation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$97.0) This change to fixed and other costs is an increase due to the recalculation of rent
charging by appropriation.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA); Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA); Energy Policy Act
of 2005; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat.
485 (codified at Title 5, App.) (the EPA's organic statute).
447
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
448
-------
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Inland Oil Spill I'ro^nims
S SO 2.0
$M>X0
S503.0
(S1 (><).<))
Science & Technology
$154,349.4
$139,709.0
$54,211.0
($85,498.0;
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$315.5
$319.0
$320.0
$1.0
Hazardous Substance Superfond
$13,622.3
$14,005.0
$5,655.0
($8,350.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$169,149.2
$154,696.0
$60,689.0
($94,007.0)
Total Workyears
460.3
476.3
265.1
-211.2
Program Project Description:
The EPA is the lead federal on-scene coordinator for inland oil spills and provides technical
assistance, when needed, for coastal spills. The EPA is therefore charged with responsibilities for
oil spill preparedness and response and associated research. The EPA's research, planned in
concert with partner agencies (the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of the Interior, Department of
Transportation, and Department of Commerce) supports the EPA's lead role in developing
protocols for testing spill response products and agents.
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program for inland oil spills, funded
through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,2 provides federal, regional, state, and community
decision-makers with analysis and tools to protect human and ecosystem health from the negative
impacts of oil spills. The EPA is making a visible difference in communities by supporting local
officials in their response to a spill. As a result of this research, oil spill responders can make
better decisions on approaches and methods to reduce the spread and impact of coastal and
inland oil spills, including pipeline and railway spills. Additionally, the EPA's remediation
expertise is critical in addressing potential impacts to communities and their environmental
resources associated with pipeline and railway oil spills.
In support of these response efforts, the EPA conducts research in support of the agency's National
Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule.3 The NCP is used nation-wide by emergency
responders and federal agencies in responding to oil spills. The EPA's role is to develop and
evaluate response approaches involving bioremediation, dispersants, and other additives, and to
assess impacts to surface water and groundwater, especially as they affect drinking water supplies.
The EPA's Land and Emergency Management Program and Regional Offices rely on this research
to provide testing procedures that inform cleanup decisions during an emergency spill response.
2 http://www.iiscg.mil/ccs/iipfc/Aboiit NPFC/osltf'.asp.
3 http://www2.epa.gov/eiiiergeDCY-response/iiatloDal-coiitiiigeiicv-plaii'-subpart-i
449
-------
Recent accomplishments include:
• Developing an Oil Surface Washing Agent Protocol: Surface Washing Agents (SWAs),
also known as shoreline cleaning agents, are listed in the NCP and can be used following
an oil spill event to enhance the removal of stranded oil from shoreline surfaces. The EPA
has been developing a laboratory effectiveness test for SWA that will serve as a basis for
proposed new listing criteria for the SWA products in the NCP.
• Providing OLEM with Information on Biodegradability for Crude Oils and
Dispersants: EPA's research results in this area inform decision makers on how long
surfactant chemicals can potentially persist in the environment after use in responding to
an oil spill, thus supporting the agency's goal of protecting communities.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA's oil spill research will prioritize efforts. These efforts include:
• Developing or revising protocols to test oil spill control agents or products for listing on
the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule and conducting other research, as
needed by the EPA's Emergency Management Program.
• Conducting studies on the effectiveness of bioremediation of petroleum-based oil,
vegetable oil, and biodiesel.
• Researching dispersants' performance and behavior in deep water and arctic spills, in
collaboration with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement and Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The EPA has established a standing subcommittee under the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) for the SHC program to evaluate its performance and provide feedback to the agency. In
addition, the EPA meets with the BOSC and Science Advisory Board (SAB) annually for input on
topics related to research program design, science quality, innovation, relevance, and impact. The
EPA will be advised on its strategic research direction as part of the review of the Research and
Development program's recently-released Strategic Research Action Plans (StRAPs).
The EPA collaborates with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White
House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess research performance. The
EPA supports the interagency Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment, Measuring the
Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) efforts.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
450
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$160.0) This streamlines research to study the performance and behavior of oil dispersants
in deep water and arctic spills as well as revised protocols for testing oil spill control agents
pursuant to the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule.
Statutory Authority:
Oil Pollution Act; Clean Water Act, §311.
451
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table 454
Program Area: Categorical Grants 458
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection 459
Categorical Grant: Brownfields 460
Categorical Grant: Lead 462
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information 463
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance 466
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants 468
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) 469
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement 470
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation 471
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) 474
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention 477
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 478
Categorical Grant: Radon 480
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management 481
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance 485
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management 486
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program 488
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) 490
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks 492
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development 493
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) 495
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF 496
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF 499
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages 504
Brownfields Projects 505
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program 508
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border 510
Targeted Airshed Grants 511
452
-------
453
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
$3,484,836.2
$3,611,473.0
$2,933,467.0
($678,006.0)
Total Workyears
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bill Language: STAG
For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants for
State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, $2,933,467,000, to remain available
until expended, of which—
(1) $1,393,887,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and of which $863,233,000 shall
be for making capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section
1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Provided, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution
control revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts
included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2018 and prior years where such
amounts represent costs of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are or were
deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other assets in the fund,
and used for eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (g)(1),
(h), and (I) of section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, grants made under title II
of such Act for American Samoa, Guam, the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the United
States Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia may also be made for the purpose ofproviding
assistance: (1) solely for facility plans, design activities, or plans, specifications, and estimates for
any proposed project for the construction of treatment works; and (2) for the construction, repair,
or replacement of privately owned treatment works serving one or more principal residences or
small commercial establishments:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding the provisions of such subsections
(g)(l), (h), and (I) of section 201 and section 518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
funds reserved by the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act may also be used to provide assistance: (1) solely for facility plans, design activities,
or plans, specifications, and estimates for any proposed project for the construction of treatment
works; and (2) for the construction, repair, or replacement of privately owned treatment works
serving one or more principal residences or small commercial establishments:
454
-------
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and regulations issued pursuant thereof, up to a total of $2,000,000 of the
funds reserved by the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of such Act may also be used
for grants for training, technical assistance, and educational programs relating to the operation
and management of the treatment works specified in section 518(c) of such Act:
Providedfurther, That for fiscal year 2018, funds reserved under section 518(c) of such Act shall
be available for grants only to Indian tribes, as defined in section 518(h) of such Act and former
Indian reservations in Oklahoma (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior) and Native
Villages as defined in Public Law 92-203:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section
518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, up to a total of 2 percent of the funds
appropriated, or $30,000,000, whichever is greater, and notwithstanding the limitation on
amounts in section 1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to a total of 2 percent of the funds
appropriated, or $20,000,000, whichever is greater, for State Revolving Funds under such Acts
may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) and section 1452(i) of such
Acts:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding the amounts specified in section
205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, up to 1.5 percent of the aggregate funds
appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program under the Act less any sums
reserved under section 518(c) of the Act, may be reserved by the Administrator for grants made
under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and United States Virgin Islands:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2018, notwithstanding the limitations on amounts specified
in section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act may be
reserved by the Administrator for grants made under section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act:
Provided further, That not less than 10 percent but not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants
and not less than 20 percent but not more than 30 percent of the funds made available under this
title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by
the State to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal,
negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these), and shall be so used by the State
only where such funds are provided as initial financing for an eligible recipient or to buy,
refinance, or restructure the debt obligations of eligible recipients only where such debt was
incurred on or after the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) $69,000,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), including grants, interagency
agreements, and associated program support costs: Provided, That not more than 25 percent of
the amount appropriated to carry out section 104(k) of CERCLA shall be used for site
455
-------
characterization, assessment, and remediation of facilities described in section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II)
of CERCLA;
(3) $10,000,000 shall be for grants under title VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
and
(4) $597,347,000 shall be for grants, including associated program support costs, to States,
federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies
for multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related activities,
including activities pursuant to the provisions setforth under this heading in Public Law 104-134,
and for making grants under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter
monitoring and data collection activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the
Administrator, of which: $33,358,000 shall be for carrying out section 128 of CERCLA;
$6,739,000 shall be for Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including
associated program support costs; $12,470,000 of the funds available for grants under section
106 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be for State participation in national- and
State-level statistical surveys of water resources and enhancements to State monitoring programs.
Program Projects in STAG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
$19,499.9
$19,962.0
$0.0
($19,962.0)
Brownfields Projects
$88,874.4
$79,848.0
$69,000.0
($10,848.0)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
$1,350,884.4
$1,391,237.0
$1,393,887.0
$2,650.0
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
$853,752.7
$961,592.0
$863,233.0
($98,359.0)
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
$10,345.6
$9,981.0
$0.0
($9,981.0)
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
$53,750.5
$49,905.0
$10,000.0
($39,905.0)
Targeted Airshed Grants
$9,934.4
$19,962.0
$0.0
($19,962.0)
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG)
$2,387,041.9
$2,532,487.0
$2,336,120.0
($196,367.0)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
$166,177.0
$164,601.0
$0.0
($164,601.0)
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
$100,104.1
$101,769.0
$71,238.0
($30,531.0)
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
$227,533.6
$227,785.0
$159,450.0
($68,335.0)
Categorical Grant: Radon
$8,114.2
$8,036.0
$0.0
($8,036.0)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
$18,838.3
$0.0
$12,470.0
$12,470.0
456
-------
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106) (other activities)
$214,316.1
$230,367.0
$148,787.0
($81,580.0)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution
Control (Sec. 106)
$233,154.4
$230,367.0
$161,257.0
($69,110.0)
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
$13,562.2
$14,633.0
$10,243.0
($4,390.0)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
$10,053.6
$10,486.0
$7,340.0
($3,146.0)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
$12,841.3
$12,677.0
$8,874.0
($3,803.0)
Categorical Grant: Lead
$14,694.6
$14,022.0
$0.0
($14,022.0)
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
$98,994.1
$99,503.0
$69,652.0
($29,851.0)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
$17,845.0
$18,016.0
$11,050.0
($6,966.0)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
$5,417.7
$4,756.0
$0.0
($4,756.0)
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
$5,220.0
$4,910.0
$3,437.0
($1,473.0)
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
$67,888.7
$65,352.0
$45,746.0
($19,606.0)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
$1,495.4
$1,495.0
$0.0
($1,495.0)
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
$13,104.5
$12,805.0
$8,963.0
($3,842.0)
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
$9,696.4
$9,628.0
$6,739.0
($2,889.0)
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
$9,487.0
$9,531.0
$0.0
($9,531.0)
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
$48,465.8
$47,654.0
$33,358.0
($14,296.0)
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants
$20,642.7
$20,960.0
$0.0
($20,960.0)
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
$1,084,492.3
$1,078,986.0
$597,347.0
($481,639.0)
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
$13,302.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Subtotal, Congressionally Mandated Projects
$13,302.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
TOTAL, EPA
$3,484,836.2
$3,611,473.0
$2,933,467.0
($678,006.0)
457
-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
458
-------
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S'J.-IS'.O
sv.xu.n
so.o
(S
-------
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S4H,4(t.\H
S
SJJJiS.O
(SI4.2W>.
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will allocate funding support to approximately 160 state and Tribal response
programs. Grant supported state and Tribal response programs will oversee the cleanup at
approximately 26,032 properties making over 90,000 acres ready for reuse.
States and tribes may use categorical grant funding provided under this program in the following
ways:
• Conducting site-specific activities, such as assessments and cleanups at brownfields sites;4
• Developing mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public
participation;
• Developing mechanisms for approval of cleanup plans, and verification and certification
that cleanup efforts are complete;
• Creating an inventory of brownfields sites;
• Capitalizing a Revolving Loan Fund for brownfields-related work;
• Developing a public record;
• Developing oversight and enforcement authorities, or other mechanisms and resources;
• Purchasing environmental insurance;
• Developing state and Tribal tracking and management systems for land use, institutional
and engineering controls; and
• Conducting public education and outreach efforts to ensure that Tribal communities are
informed and able to participate in environmental decision-making.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,296.0) This change in funding reduces cleanup oversight by states and tribes. The
EPA will work with states and tribes to prioritize funds to establish core capabilities,
enhance their response programs, and identify program efficiencies.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, § 128.
4 For more information, see Brownfields State & Local Tribal Information.
461
-------
Categorical Grant: Lead
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S14.M4.U
S 14.022.0
S 0.0
(SI 4.022.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 4.694.6
SI 4.022.0
so.o
(SI 4.022.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Lead Paint Program is working to reduce the number of children with blood lead levels
of five micrograms per deciliter or higher. The Lead program also works to reduce the disparities
in blood lead levels between low-income children and non-low-income children.5 The Lead
Categorical Grant Program provides support to authorized states and Tribal programs that
administer training and certification programs for lead professionals and contractors.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Lead paint certification will
continue under the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,022.0) This funding change eliminates the Categorical Grant: Lead Program.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), §§ 401-412.
5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fourth Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables,
(September 2012). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurerepoit/.
462
-------
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S'J.fiW,.-/
V). "*
-------
protection. Under this strategy, the agency will continue implementing its business processes and
systems to reduce reporting burden on states and regulated facilities, and improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of environmental protection programs for the EPA, states, and tribes. EPA and states
are making progress on implementing the E-Enterprise business strategy and will adjust schedules
and prioritization to align with capacity. The EPA anticipates awarding 15 EN grants in FY 2018
that will assist states, tribes, and territories implement the following activities:
• Data Access and Availability: These activities create services and tools that make state or
Tribal data available on demand to other partners. Providing data through Web services and
application programming interfaces (APIs) helps facilitate the sharing of information with
the public, with private sector entities, and among state, Tribal, and territorial agencies and
the EPA. The development of an API and Web services approach, in collaboration with
Exchange Network partners, advances the Network's Phase 2 goals of expanding access to
environmental data and enhancing inter- and intra-partner data sharing. Emphasis will be
placed on projects that develop Web services, APIs, and tools that support access, analysis
and integration of environmental data. Grant activities may include mobile and desktop
applications, executive and program dashboards and publishing environmental information
to public sites.
• New EPA Reporting Data Flows: Grant projects will support developing and implementing
new Exchange Network data flows that enable automated reporting to EPA systems (e.g.,
e-Permitting or NPDES).
• Partner Data Sharing: These activities support the partners' ability to share cross-state,
cross-Tribal or state-Tribal data, such as institutional controls at contamination sites, data
on cleanup sites, and datasets of national significance to tribes (e.g., open dumps).
• Virtual Exchange Services (VES) support for states, tribes and territories: This program
supports Exchange Network Partners transitioning from using individually-operated nodes
to leveraging the EPA-hosted VES. Moving to VES supports the transition to a cloud-based
network infrastructure, which provides more cost-efficient ways for EN partners to manage
nodes, thereby decreasing development and operational costs (including licensing, server,
and administration costs). This new cloud-based model provides a simplified and
standardized development environment, creates greater economies of scale and reduces the
administration burden on partners.
• Sharing Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) services and components:
This supports state and Tribal adoption and implementation of a suite of CDX services that
the EPA has centrally developed for CROMERR functions. Specific Shared Services
include electronic signature for submissions from regulated entities, Copy of Record
management and identity management within the registration process. States and tribes will
use these services that are centrally hosted by the EPA, replacing individually developed
system functions. The use of shared services will reduce states and tribes' time to prepare
and review applications and develop systems, and the cost to develop, operate, and maintain
CROMERR-compliant e-reporting systems.
464
-------
• Support for the Exchange Network program and E-Enterprise business strategy through a
cooperative agreement with ECOS under the associated program support cost authority
(Public Law 113-76). This includes direct support to both Exchange Network and E-
Enterprise joint governance, each of which represents a cross-section of the EPA, state and
Tribal organizations. The cooperative agreement assists state, Tribal and territorial
organizations in fulfilling the missions of both programs by providing programmatic,
policy, technical and administrative support; promoting information-sharing amongst
state/Tribal/territorial/federal partners; enhancing communication and outreach; and
convening national user meetings.
The "National Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program Solicitation Notice"
sets forth the process for awarding grant funding to states, tribes, and territories.6 It is an annual
guidance document that describes eligibility requirements, the process for application preparation
and submission, evaluation criteria, award administration information, and post-award monitoring
procedures.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,889.0) This focuses funding for states and tribes to maintain existing tools, services
and capabilities. The EPA will work with states and tribes to target funds to core
requirements while providing flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, as amended by Pub. L. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485
(codified at Title 5, App.) (EPA's organic statute); Appropriation Acts: FY 2002 (Public Law 107-
73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199), FY 2005 (Public Law 108-
447),FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161),
FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8), FY 2010 (Public Law 111-88), FY 2011 (Public Law 112-10), FY
2012 (Public Law 112-74), FY 2013 (Public Law 113-6), FY 2014 (Public Law 113-76); and FY
15 (Public Law 113-235).
6 Please see: https://www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/exchange-network-grant-program.
465
-------
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S'JS.WJ. 1
SVV, 50.1.(1
Sf>v,fo2.()
(SJV.Sil.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$98,994.1
$99,503.0
$69,652.0
($29,851.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants help states7 implement the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Through RCRA, the EPA and states protect human health
and the environment by minimizing waste generation, preventing the release of millions of tons of
hazardous wastes, and cleaning up land and water. Authorized states conduct the direct
implementation of permitting, corrective action, and enforcement components of the RCRA
hazardous waste management program.
This grant funding supports all 50 states and 6 territories. Currently, 48 states and 2 territories are
authorized to implement the RCRA program. In addition, the EPA directly implements the RCRA
program in the states of Iowa and Alaska. To ensure statutory requirements are successful, the EPA
partners with state and local governments, as well as American businesses and non-governmental
organizations, to significantly improve waste and material management practices.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the agency (and authorized states) will:
• Issue and renew permits to a portion of the 6,600 hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal (TSD) facilities. This includes working with industry, the public, and states to
address issues related to management of hazardous waste through development and
application of standards, permits, guidance, and training;
• Process permit modifications to keep pace with evolving business practices, technology,
market conditions, and cleanup decisions;
• Update controls to encourage facilities to modernize technological systems, expand waste
management capability, improve hazardous waste management practices, and make timely
cleanup decisions;
7 When appropriate, these grants also are used to support tribes in conducting hazardous waste work in Indian Country. For additional
information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/tribaVsoHd-and-hazardous-waste-indian-coutitry-resource-conservation-and-recovery-
act-rcra.
466
-------
• Inspect facilities to ensure compliance and safety;
• Oversee cleanups at hazardous waste management facilities, and focus on completing
cleanup of the 3,779 priority 2020 Baseline facilities;
• Oversee cleanups at high priority contaminated hazardous waste management facilities and
return cleaned up property to productive use. This includes working with state partners to
ensure that responsible parties conduct effective and efficient cleanups that are protective
of human health and the environment, and reduce the burden on federal taxpayers;
• Draft implementation documents such as permits and orders, review site assessment plans
and results, review remedy selection documents, oversee remedy implementation, oversee
public participation, and track progress of cleanups;
• Continue to improve cleanup approaches, share best practices and cleanup innovations, such
as RCRA FIRST,8 and address issues of emerging science.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$29,851.0) This change in funding modifies timelines for reaching cleanup milestones,
reviews of facility data, cleanup plans, permit modifications, and assistance to Tribal
communities.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 3011.
8 For more information, visit: https://www.epa. gov/hw/toolbox-coirective-action-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-
facilities-investigation-reiiiedv.
467
-------
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
N20.6-12."
S20.'J(,0.0
so.o
(S 20.V60.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S20,642.7
S20:960.0
so.o
(S20,960.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
In FY 2016, this program provided $21 million for grants to states and tribes to assist with the
implementation of high priority activities under established environmental statutes, complementing
other funding programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. States can continue to fund work
through the EPA's core grant programs and statutes. The agency will work with states to target
funds to address their priorities.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$20,960.0) This funding change eliminates the Multipurpose Grants program.
Statutory Authority:
P-L. 114-113.
468
-------
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S166.1 ".0
S16-1.601.0
so.o
(SI 6-1.601.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$166,177.0
$164,601.0
$0.0
($164,601.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) broadly authorizes states, territories, and tribes to use
a range of tools to implement their Nonpoint Source Programs.9 Grants under Section 319 are
provided to states, territories, and tribes to help them implement their EPA approved Nonpoint
Source Management Programs.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources for this program have been eliminated in FY 2018. The agency will continue to
coordinate with the United States Department of Agriculture (USD A) on targeting funding, where
appropriate, to address nonpoint sources.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$164,601.0) This funding change eliminates the Nonpoint Source grant program. There
are funds for this type of work across government, and the agency will partner with USDA
to target their efforts.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act, § 319.
9 For more information, see: https://www.cfda.gov
469
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
SI ~.S-lxO
SIS.OIO.O
sn.050.0
(Sfi.'MO.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$17,845.0
$18,016.0
$11,050.0
($6,966.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Pesticides Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Cooperative Agreement Program
supports pesticide product and user compliance with provisions of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through cooperative agreements10 with states and tribes.
The cooperative agreements support state and Tribal compliance and enforcement activities under
FIFRA. Enforcement and pesticides program cooperative agreement guidance is issued to focus
regional, state, and Tribal efforts on the highest priorities.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will prioritize and award state and Tribal pesticides cooperative agreements
for implementing the compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions of FIFRA within our
resource levels.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,966.0) This reduction in funding streamlines the pesticides compliance monitoring and
enforcement cooperative agreement program. The EPA will work with state and tribes to
target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
10 For additional information, refer to: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/federal-iiisecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-state-
and-tribal-assistance-grant.
470
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S I2.X-I1.3
SI 2.<>—.!)
SS.S'-I.O
(SJ.SOJ.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$12,841.3
$12,677.0
$8,874.0
($3,803.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The purpose of the pesticide program implementation grants is to translate pesticide regulatory
decisions made at the national level into results at the local level. Under the pesticide statutes,
responsibility for ensuring proper pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes. Grant
resources allow states and tribes to be more effective regulatory partners.
The EPA's mission, as related to pesticides, is to protect human health and the environment from
pesticide risk and to realize the value of pesticide availability by considering the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of pesticides.11 The agency provides grants to states,
tribes, and other partners, including universities, non-profit organizations, other federal agencies,
pesticide users, environmental groups, and other entities, as necessary, to assist in strengthening
and implementing the EPA's pesticide programs. This STAG program focuses on areas such as
worker safety activities (including worker protection and certification and training of pesticide
applicators), protection of endangered species,12 protection of water resources from pesticides,
protection of pollinators, and promotion of environmental stewardship and Integrated Pest
Management related activities. These agency activities are achieved through implementation of
EPA statutes and regulatory actions by states and tribes.
The EPA supports implementation of Tribal pesticide programs through grants. Tribal program
outreach activities support Tribal capacity to protect human health by reducing risks from pesticides
in Indian country. This task is challenging given that certain aspects of Native Americans'
lifestyles, such as subsistence fishing or consumption of plants that were not grown as food and
possibly exposed to pesticides not intended for food use, may increase exposure to some chemicals
or create unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional information, please see
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-advisorv-committees-and-regulatorv-partners/tribal-pesticide-
programs.
11 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration (7
U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regiilatiiig/laws.htm.
12 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Sections 7(a) 1 and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 internet site:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-7.html.
471
-------
The agency also funds a multi-year grant in support of the State Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Issues Research and Evaluation Group, which provides common services
to states and ensures the close coordination of states and the EPA on pesticide issues.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Worker Protection Standard and Certification and Training Program
Through the Certification and Training Program and the Worker Protection Standard, the EPA
protects workers, pesticide applicators and handlers, employers, and the public from the potential
risks posed by pesticides in their work environments. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to provide
assistance and grants to implement the Certification and Training Program and Worker Protection
Standard, and to address changes to the federal regulations for these programs. In FY 2018, states,
territories, and tribes will review and respond to the proposed changes to the Certification and
Training regulations and begin to assess what changes to their certification programs may be needed
when the changes to the Certification and Training rule are finalized. For worker protection, the
states, territories, and tribes also will train their program and inspection staff on the final revisions
to the Worker Protection Standard, conduct outreach and training programs, and plan for
inspections under the new rule. See http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/how-epa-
protects-workers-pesticide-risk for more information.
Endangered Species Protection Program
The Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) protects federally listed, threatened, or
endangered animals and plants whose populations are threatened by risks associated with pesticide
use.13 The EPA complies with Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements to ensure that its
regulatory decisions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as
endangered and threatened, or destroy or adversely modify habitat designated as critical to those
species' survival. The EPA will provide grants to states, tribes, and other partners, as described
above, for projects supporting endangered species protection. Program implementation includes
outreach, communication, education related to use limitations, review and distribution of
endangered species protection bulletins, and mapping and development of endangered species
protection plans. These activities support the agency's mission to protect the environment from
pesticide risk.
Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure
Protecting the nation's water sources from possible pesticide contamination is another component
of the EPA's environmental protection efforts. The EPA provides funding, through cooperative
agreements, to states, tribes, and other partners to investigate and respond to water resource
contamination by pesticides. Stakeholders and partners, including states and tribes, are expected to
evaluate local pesticide uses that have the potential to contaminate water resources and take steps
to prevent or reduce contamination where pesticide concentrations approach or exceed levels of
concern.
13 http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/endanger/species-info.htm.
472
-------
Integrated Pest Management
Within available resources, the EPA will continue to support risk reduction by providing assistance
to promote the use of safer alternatives to traditional chemical pest control methods including
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques.14 The EPA supports the development and
evaluation of new pest management technologies that contribute to reducing both health and
environmental risks from pesticide use.
Pollinator Health
The EPA will continue to work with state and Tribal agencies to promote the development of
locally-based plans to help improve pollinator health. State pollinator protection plans in place in
several states have been an effective communication and collaboration mechanism between
stakeholders at the local level that can lead to reduced pesticide exposure and protection of honey
bees, while maintaining the flexibility needed by growers. The EPA believes that these plans,
developed through a robust stakeholder engagement process at the local level, serve as good models
for enhanced local communication and also can help accomplish the EPA's overall goal of
mitigating exposure of bees to acutely toxic pesticides.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,803.0) Due to this change, renewed focus will be placed on streamlining core activities
and reducing duplication. The EPA will work with states and tribes to target funds to core
requirements while providing flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; Endangered Species Act (ESA).
14 For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/pesp/.
473
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S 2JJ.I5-I.-I
S2.WJ6-.0
S J 01.2 j~.il
(Sf><).] 10.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S2?.V 154.4
S2WU67.0
SI 61.257.0
(S69J 10.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to provide federal assistance to states
(including territories and the District of Columbia), tribes qualified under Clean Water Act Section
518(e), and interstate agencies to establish and maintain adequate programs for the prevention and
control of surface and groundwater pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Prevention and
control activities supported through these grants include providing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, conducting ambient water quality monitoring and
assessment, listing impaired waters, developing water quality standards and Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs), surveillance, and enforcement. Section 106 grants also may be used to provide
support through an EPA contract, if requested by a state or tribe.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Section 106 Grant Program supports prevention and control measures that improve water
quality. In FY 2018, the EPA will focus on core statutory requirements while continuing to provide
states and tribes with flexibility to best address their particular priorities.
Monitoring and Assessment:
The EPA is working with states to provide monitoring and assessment information to support
multiple Clean Water Act programs in a cost-efficient and effective manner. The goal is to have
scientifically defensible monitoring data that is needed to address priority problems at state,
national, and local levels and to track national water quality improvements over time.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue working with states and tribes to support their water quality
monitoring programs. Monitoring Initiative funds for states and tribes will support the statistically
valid National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) of national and regional water conditions and
the enhancement of state and Tribal monitoring programs. In FY 2018, the Monitoring Initiative
will be funded at $12.5 million, with $5.9 million allocated for participation in the NARS and $6.6
million for monitoring program priority enhancements. Through the Monitoring and Assessment
Partnership, the EPA will work with states to develop and apply innovative and efficient monitoring
tools and techniques to optimize availability of high-quality data to support priority Clean Water
Act program needs.
474
-------
Review and Update Water Quality Standards:
States and authorized tribes will review and update their water quality standards as required by the
Clean Water Act and the EPA regulation at 40 CFR part 131. The regulations place a focus on
states and tribes keeping water quality criteria in their standards up-to-date to reflect the latest
science. The EPA will work with tribes that want to establish water quality standards.
Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads:
The EPA will work with states and other partners to develop and implement TMDLs for Clean
Water Act 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies as a tool for meeting water quality restoration goals.
TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental goals and establish a pollutant budget, which is
then implemented via permit requirements and through local, state, and federal watershed plans
and programs to restore waters. The EPA will work with states to facilitate accurate,
comprehensive, and geo-referenced water quality assessment decisions made available to the public
via the Assessment Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and Implementation System. In addition,
the EPA and states will implement a performance measure that looks more comprehensively at the
303(d) program by measuring the extent of state priorities addressed by TMDLs, alternative
restoration plans, or protection plans.
Issue Permits:
The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be permitted and pretreatment programs
to control discharges from industrial and other facilities to the nation's wastewater treatment plants.
The EPA will work with states to balance competing priorities, identify opportunities to enhance
the integrity and effectiveness of NPDES permits, set schedules to address significant action items,
and map out program revisions.
Conducting Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement:
The EPA will work with NPDES-authorized states to implement the 2014 Clean Water Act NPDES
Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). The NPDES CMS establishes national goals for
allocation of inspection resources across all NPDES regulated entities in order to best protect water
quality.
The EPA works with states on advanced technologies such as remote water monitoring sensors to
collect discharge data and to more efficiently identify problem areas. The agency expects that these
technologies will improve the EPA's and state's analytical capabilities and enhance the public's
knowledge about the quality of their environment.
Currently, the EPA and states are implementing the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule through the
Integrated Compliance Information System.15 Phase 1 of the rule was implemented in FY 2017 for
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports and Phase 2 will begin cooperatively with our state partners
in FY 2018. Also, in FY 2018, the EPA will work with additional states in the development of
electronic reporting tools. For example, approximately 20 states currently use the EPA's electronic
reporting tool to collect DMRs. This saves the states a significant amount of resources in
development and operations and maintenance costs.
15 For more information, refer to: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/npdes-ereDortmg.
475
-------
Working with Tribal Water Pollution Control Programs:
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with Tribal programs on activities that address water quality and
pollution problems on Tribal lands. Tribes will implement the Clean Water Act Section 106 Tribal
Guidance, which forms a framework for tribes to establish, implement, and expand their Water
Pollution Control Programs.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$69,110.0) This streamlines the Section 106 Pollution Control grant program. The EPA
will work with states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing
flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act, § 106.
476
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
s
S-f, ~5(1.1)
so.o
(S-l. -.><>.())
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S5.417.7
S4,756.0
so.o
(S4,756.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prevention (P2) Categorical Grants program augments the counterpart P2 program
under the Environmental Program and Management (EPM) account.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources and FTE have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. Based on previous
investments in P2 solutions made under this program/project, partners are expected to be able to
continue to share best practices and seek additional pollution prevention solutions.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,756.0) This funding change eliminates the Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
program in FY 2018.
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; Toxic Substances Control Act.
477
-------
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
SI DO. ID-I.I
S IUI'M.0
N 'I.JJS.O
(SMHU0
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 00,104.1
SI 01.769.0
S71.238.0
(S.?0,5.?1.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program provides grants to states and tribes with
primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and enforce the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These grants support the safety of the
nation's drinking water resources. The states are the primary implementers of the national drinking
water program and work with the public water systems, within their jurisdiction, to protect public
health by achieving and maintaining compliance with drinking water rules.
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set forth health-based standards, monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping, sanitary survey, compliance tracking, and enforcement elements to
ensure that the nation's drinking water supplies do not pose adverse health effects. The PWSS
program supports the states' role in a federal/state partnership to ensure safe drinking water supplies
to the public. States use these grant funds to fund drinking water program personnel who:
• Provide technical assistance to owners and operators of public water systems;
• Manage public water system data, facilitate electronic reporting of compliance monitoring
data, and submit that data into the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS);
• Share sampling results with the public;
• Respond to violations;
• Certify laboratories;
• Conduct laboratory analyses;
• Conduct sanitary surveys (i.e., on-sight reviews conducted to determine and support a
facility's capacity to deliver safe drinking water) and other site visits;
• Respond to questions from the public;
• Train and certify public water system operators; and
• Provide training and technical assistance to small system staff and management to build
water system technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
Some states and tribes do not have primary enforcement authority. Funds allocated to the state of
Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes without primacy are used to support direct
478
-------
implementation activities by the EPA or for developmental grants to Indian tribes to develop
capacity for primacy.16
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will work with states and tribes to target funds to core statutory requirements
while providing states and tribes with flexibility to best address their particular priorities.
In FY 2018, the EPA will provide funds to support state and Tribal efforts to assist water systems in
meeting existing drinking water regulations and in working to develop financial and managerial
capacity needed to protect federal investments that remedy aging or inadequate infrastructure (e.g., pipe
replacement to prevent failures in distribution systems; installation of treatment to remove harmful
drinking water contaminants). The EPA will encourage states to use grant funds to focus, to the
extent possible, on the most immediate challenges public water systems are facing today.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$30,531.0) This streamlines the Public Water System Supervision grant program. The
EPA will work with states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing
flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act, § 1443.
16 For more information, see:
http://www.epa. gov/dwreginfo/public-water-system-supervision-pwss-grant-program
https://www.cfda. gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step .1 &id=cca()66b833c552bdf3c9ffl) 1 te576c7f".
479
-------
Categorical Grant: Radon
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
s kin.:
SS.OMi.O
so.o
(S li.tljfi.O)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S8,l 14.2
SX,036.0
so.o
(S8,036.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's non-regulatory radon program promotes public action to reduce the health risk from
indoor radon. The EPA has assisted states and tribes through technical support and the State Indoor
Radon Grants (SIRG) program, which provided categorical grants to develop, implement, and
enhance programs that assess and mitigate radon risk. For over 29 years, the EPA's radon program
has provided important guidance and significant funding to help states establish their own
programs. The EPA supplemented grant dollars with technical support to transfer "best practices"
among states that promote effective program implementation across the nation.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,036.0) This funding change eliminates the Radon Grant program.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; Title IV of the SARA
of 1986; TSCA, Section 6, Titles II and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671); and IRAA,
Section 306.
480
-------
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
.S 22 .VoV)
.S 22 ~Kxf>
S I5V.450M
(SfiXJJxO)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S227.5.W6
S227.785.0
SI 59.450.0
(S68.335.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides funding for state air programs, as implemented by multi-state, state, and
local air pollution control agencies. Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the EPA
with the authority to award grants to a variety of agencies, institutions, and organizations, including
the air pollution control agencies funded from the STAG appropriation, to conduct and promote
certain types of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and
training related to air pollution. Section 105 of the CAA provides the EPA with the authority to
award grants to state and local air pollution control agencies to develop and implement continuing
environmental programs for the prevention and control of air pollution, for the implementation of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set to protect public health and the
environment, and for improving visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas (Class I
areas). The continuing activities, funded under Section 105, include development and
implementation of emission reduction measures, development and operation of air quality
monitoring networks, and a number of other air program activities. Section 106 of the CAA
provides the EPA with the authority to fund interstate air pollution transport commissions to
develop or carry out plans for designated air quality control regions.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, states will continue to be responsible for State Implementation Plans (SIPs) which
provide a blueprint for the programs and activities that states carry out to attain and maintain the
NAAQS and comply with visibility obligations. There are several events that trigger SIP
obligations. For example, when the EPA promulgates a new or revises an existing NAAQS,
affected states must update certain parts of their SIPs within three years. In addition, whenever
EPA completes a designation or reclassification of a nonattainment area for a particular pollutant,
an affected state must update their SIP within three years or 18 months, depending on the pollutant.
In FY 2018, states will be reviewing their SIPs for implementing ozone standards revised in 2015.
Also, affected states will be completing development or revision of attainment SIPs for areas
designated nonattainment or reclassified to Serious for the 2006 and/or 2012 fine particle (PM2.5)
NAAQS and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. States also have SIP obligations associated
with visibility requirements, among other requirements identified in the CAA.
States will continue implementing the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 2008 lead
NAAQS, the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. As
481
-------
appropriate, states also will continue implementing the previous PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS,
including the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (through anti-backsliding
requirements). SIP preparation for some pollutants is complicated due to the regional nature of air
pollution that requires additional and more detailed modeling, refined emissions inventories, and
greater stakeholder involvement. In FY 2018, states will prioritize activities needed to meet
obligations for SIP development and in implementing their plans for the NAAQS and regional
haze, adjusting schedules, and identifying streamlining options.
States will operate and maintain their existing monitoring networks at baseline levels. This is
typically the largest part of a state's air program, supporting the quality and availability of data
that states are required to submit. In 2015, the EPA finalized its review of the ozone NAAQS
monitoring requirements, and extended the ozone monitoring season in 33 states and revised
monitoring requirements for the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS). Any
PAMS revised monitoring requirements are required to be operational in 2019. The EPA also
finalized the Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and states will continue
operating new monitoring networks in certain locations in FY 2018.
The multi-pollutant monitoring site network (NCore) serves multiple objectives such as measuring
long-term trends of air pollution, validating models, and providing input to health and atmospheric
science studies. The EPA will provide assistance to states to operate this network of approximately
80 stations across the nation. Funding for priority updates to the NCore stations, which provide
measurements for particles, including filter-based and continuous mass for PM2.5; chemical
speciation for PM2.5; and PM10 - PM2.5 mass, will be provided. Stations also measure gases such
as carbon monoxide (CO), SO2, NO2, and ozone, and record basic meteorology. In FY 2018, the
EPA will continue its review of the monitoring requirements supporting the NO2 NAAQS. States
and the EPA will adjust the schedule of any relocation of existing CO and PM2.5 monitors where
states have asked the EPA to help them address near road environments - a source of concentrated
mobile source emissions. Data collected from monitoring sites, implemented under phases 1 and
2 of the near-road monitoring network, will be considered as part of this review for the
determination of the appropriate network design.
In FY 2018, states with approved or delegated permitting programs will continue to implement
permitting requirements as part of their programs. The EPA will continue to undertake actions
required as a result of the Supreme Court's 2014 decision on the EPA's Tailoring Rule as well as
the April 2015 D.C. Circuit Amended Judgment implementing the Supreme Court decision.
The development of a complete emission inventory is an important step in an air quality
management process. Emission inventories are used to help determine significant sources of air
pollutants and establish emission trends over time, target regulatory actions, and estimate air
quality through dispersion and photo-chemical modeling. An emission inventory includes
estimates of the emissions from various pollution sources in a specific geographical area. In FY
2018, states will continue to develop inventories and submit data to the EPA under an adjusted
schedule for the next release of the National Emissions Inventory.
482
-------
This program supports state and local agency capabilities to provide air quality forecasts for ozone
and PM2.5 that provide the public with information they can use to make daily lifestyle decisions
to protect their health. This information allows people to take precautionary measures to avoid or
limit their exposure to unhealthy levels of air quality. In addition, many communities use forecasts
for initiating air quality "action" or "awareness" days, which seek voluntary participation from the
public to reduce pollution and improve local air quality. Data will be updated on an adjusted
schedule to sustain some ability of state and local agencies to provide important public health
information to the public.
This program also supports state and local efforts to characterize air toxics problems and take
measures to reduce health risks from air toxics, most often through implementation of EPA
regulations. For example, this funding supports enforcement of new and revised New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards for major sources (and area sources) by delegated air agencies. This funding also
supports characterization work that includes collection and analysis of emissions data and
monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY 2018, funds for air toxic ambient monitoring also will
support the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS), consisting of 27 air toxics monitoring
sites operated and maintained by state and local air pollution control agencies across the country,
including the associated quality assurance, data analysis, and methods support. States will balance
the requirements of the different components of their monitoring enterprise in FY 2018.
Under the visibility requirements of the CAA, FY 2018 work includes base supports for states as
they complete first planning period obligations for regional haze and work collaboratively to
support SIP submissions associated with the second planning period. In addition, states will be
implementing control measures required from their first planning period SIPs. Remaining first
planning period obligations include submittal of progress report SIP revisions to ensure that states
are making progress toward their visibility improvement goals. Comprehensive regional haze SIP
revisions are due 2021 and states will initiate planning for that deadline in 2018.
In FY 2018, the EPA will transition the funding of the PM2.5 monitoring network from Section
103 authority of the CAA, which provides 100 percent federal funding, to Section 105 authority
of the CAA, which provides a maximum federal share of 60 percent.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$68,335.0) This refocuses support for continuing environmental state programs
responsible for carrying out air quality implementation activities. The EPA will work
with states to target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to address
particular priorities.
o A maj or component of this program is air monitoring which is used for providing
information to the public, states, and researchers; and
o States will refocus resources to incorporate any new recommendations as a result
483
-------
of updated NAAQS monitoring guidance.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act, §§ 103, 105.
484
-------
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S X220.0
S -I.VIO.O
V*.-/.*"«
(SI.-/-.10)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S5.220.0
S4.910.0
S.V437.0
(S1.47.V0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Compliance program builds environmental partnerships
with states and tribes to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health threats
from toxic substances. This State and Tribal Assistance Grant is used to prevent or eliminate
unreasonable risks to health or the environment and to ensure compliance with toxic substance
regulations. The compliance monitoring activities conducted by the states will be a cooperative
endeavor addressing the priorities of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act program and state
issues.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue, within our resource levels, to award state and Tribal assistance
grants to assist in the implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions of TSCA.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,473.0) This streamlines the Toxic Substances Compliance grants. The EPA will work
with states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to
address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act.
485
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S 13.10-1.5
SI 2.HO 5 M
S S.V/iJ.O
(S3.K-I2.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI.VI 04.5
SI 2.805.0
S8.963.0
(S3.842.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes funding for Tribal air pollution control agencies and/or tribes. Through
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 105 grants, tribes may develop and implement programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution and implementation of national primary and secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Through CAA Section 103 grants, Tribal air
pollution control agencies or tribes, colleges, universities, and multi-tribe jurisdictional air
pollution control agencies may conduct and promote research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to ambient or indoor air pollution in Indian
country.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Tribes will assess environmental and public health conditions in Indian country by developing
emission inventories and, where appropriate, siting and operating air quality monitors. Tribes will
continue to develop and implement air pollution control programs for Indian country to prevent
and address air quality concerns. The EPA will continue to fund organizations for the purpose of
providing technical support, tools, and training for tribes to build capacity to develop and
implement programs at reduced levels. A key activity is to work to reduce the number of days
in violation of the NAAQS. This program supports the agency's priority of building strong
partnerships with individual tribes and with the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA), whose
priorities include tribes' ability to collect and provide monitoring data and to protect the health of
their Tribal members.
In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement the Tribal New Source Review (NSR) rule,
under which tribes may opt to take an active role in implementation by developing a Tribal
Implementation Plan (TIP), managing the program under the EPA's authority, or by actively
participating in the permit review and outreach process.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
486
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,842.0) This streamlines federal support for CAA grants provided to tribes. The EPA
will work with tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to
best address priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act, §§ 103, 105.
487
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
V»".S'.S'.V. "
S(>5J52M
S-/.\
(SI'J. 000.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$67,888.7
$65,352.0
$45,746.0
($19,606.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
In calendar year 1992, Congress established the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program
(GAP) which provides grants and technical assistance to tribes to cover the costs of planning,
developing, and establishing Tribal environmental protection programs consistent with other
applicable provisions of law administered by the EPA, providing for enforcement of such laws by
tribes on Indian lands. The EPA works collaboratively with Tribal partners on mutually identified
envrionmental and health priorities to achieve these aims. Funding provided under GAP is for the
administrative, technical, legal, enforcement, communication, and outreach capacities tribes need
to effectively administer environmental regulatory programs that the EPA may delegate to tribes.
Please see http://www.epa.gov/aieo/gap.htm for more information.
Some uses of GAP funds include:
• Assessing the status of a tribe's environmental conditions;
• Developing appropriate environmental programs and ordinances;
• Developing the capacity to administer environmental regulatory programs that the EPA may
delegate to a tribe;
• Conducting public education and outreach efforts to ensure that Tribal communities
(including non-members residing in Indian country) are informed and able to participate in
environmental decision-making;
• Promoting communication and coordination among federal, state, local, and Tribal
environmental officials; and
• Promoting effective consultation activities on environmental actions and issues.
GAP supports Tribal capacity development through financial assistance to more than 530 Tribal
governments and inter-tribal consortia. GAP has helped tribes receive 110 program delegations for
tribes to administer a variety of programs across a number of statutes, including the Clean Water
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. Tribes also have developed their capacity to
assist the EPA in implementing federal environmental programs in the absence of an EPA approved
Tribal program through Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs). In FY
2016, there were 16 active DITCAs supporting the EPA's direct implementation activities.
Similarly, the EPA also has been able to certify 23 Tribal employees as inspectors for various
federal compliance programs. GAP also supports tribes with the development of their waste
488
-------
management programs with over 220 tribes having established Integrated Waste Management
Plans.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, GAP grants will continue to assist Tribal governments in developing environmental
protection program capacity to assess environmental conditions; using relevant environmental
information to improve long-range strategic environmental program development planning; and
developing environmental programs tailored to Tribal needs consistent with those long-range
strategic plans.
The agency's "Guidance on the Award and Management of General Assistance Agreements for
Tribes and Inter-Tribal Consortia "17 establishes an overall framework for tribes and the EPA to
follow in developing Tribal environmental program capacity under GAP. Specifically, the guidance
requires strengthening joint strategic planning through EPA-Tribal Environmental Plans (ETEPs)
to document long-range Tribal environmental program development priorities. These strategic
planning documents inform funding decisions by linking ETEP goals to annual GAP assistance
agreement work plans and providing a mechanism to measure Tribal progress in meeting their
program development goals. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to implement GAP under this
national framework and expand the number of ETEPs. The EPA also will maintain an emphasis on
trainings (internal and external) in FY 2018 to support nationally consistent GAP guidance
interpretation and implementation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$19,606.0) This reduces funding for tribes to develop the capacity to implement
environmental protection programs in Indian country. The EPA will work with tribes to
target funds to core requirements while providing flexibility to address particular priorities
expressed in the ETEPs.
Statutory Authority:
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act.
17 http://www.epa.gov/tp/GAP-guidance-final.pdf.
489
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
s W.(ix\f>
Sllt.-IHft.lt
S 'J-Ht.lt
(S J. l-lfi.lt)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$10,053.6
$10,486.0
$7,340.0
($3,146.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) grant program funds are allocated to federal,
state, and Tribal government agencies that oversee underground injection activities, in order to
prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water from fluid injection, as established
by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The EPA provides financial assistance, in the form of grants, to states and tribes that have primary
enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and manage UIC programs. Eligible Indian tribes
that demonstrate an intent to achieve primacy also may receive grants for the initial development
of UIC programs and be designated for "Treatment as a State" if their programs are approved.
Where a jurisdiction does not have primacy, the EPA uses these funds for direct implementation of
federal UIC requirements.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The UIC program manages more than 700,000 injection wells18 across six well types to protect our
groundwater resources. The requested funding supports implementation of the UIC program. The
EPA directly implements UIC programs in nine states and two territories and shares responsibility
in seven states and two tribes. The EPA also administers the UIC programs for all other tribes and
for Class VI wells in all states.19
The EPA will continue its support of state oil and gas programs as they implement the UIC Class
II program or assume responsibility for Class II programs.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
18 As represented in calendar year 2015 annual inventory.
19 For more information, please visit:
https://www.cfda. gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step .1 &id=c 1307f'37f'e8bec34f'l a65660eff'49Sa8&cek= .1 &au=&ck:
http://water.epa.gov/tvpe/groimdwater/uic/iiidex.cfiii
490
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,146.0) This streamlines the Underground Injection Control grant program. The EPA
will work with states and tribes to target funds to core statutory requirements while providing
flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act, § 1443.
491
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
s l.-ivx-l
s i.-ivxo
so.o
(S l.-ivxll)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI,495.4
SI,495.0
so.o
(SI,495.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks (UST) can contaminate groundwater, the
drinking water source for many Americans. The State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program
provides funding to states20 to bring UST systems into compliance with release prevention and
release detection requirements.
STAG funds are used by states to fund such activities as: seeking state program approval to operate
the UST program in lieu of the federal program; approving specific technologies to detect leaks
from tanks; ensuring that tank owners and operators are complying with notification and other
requirements; ensuring equipment compatibility; conducting inspections; and implementing
operator training.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. States could elect to maintain core
program work with state resources rather than federal.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,495.0) This funding change eliminates the Categorical Grant: Underground Storage
Tanks program.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, § 2007(f); Energy Policy Act, § 9011.
20 States as referenced here also include the District of Columbia and five territories as described in the definition of state in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
492
-------
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Program Area: Categorical Grants
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S l.i.Sfi2.2
S
SI 0.2-1.10
(S-IJ'JO.O)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$13,562.2
$14,633.0
$10,243.0
($4,390.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Wetlands Program Development Grants (WPDGs) assist states, tribes, and local governments
to build or enhance their wetland protection and restoration programs. The program's grants are
used to develop new or refine existing state and Tribal wetland programs in one or more of the
following areas: (1) monitoring and assessment; (2) voluntary restoration and protection; (3)
regulatory programs, including Section 401 certification and Section 404 assumption;21 and (4)
wetland water quality standards.
States and tribes develop program elements based on their goals and resources. The grants support
development of state and Tribal wetland programs that further the goals of the Clean Water Act
and improve water quality in watersheds throughout the country. The grants are awarded on a
competitive basis under the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. Funding is split
among the EPA Regional Offices according to the number of states and territories per Regional
Office. Each Regional Office is required, by regulation, to compete the award of these funds to
states, tribes, local governments, interstate agencies, and inter-tribal consortia.22
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources will continue to assist states and tribes in strengthening wetland protection through
documenting stresses or improvements to wetland condition, providing incentives for wetland
restoration and protection, and developing regulatory controls to avoid, minimize, and compensate
for wetland impacts.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
21 State and Tribal assumption of Section 404 is an approach that can be useful in streamlining Section 404 permitting in coordination
with other environmental and land use planning regulations. When states or tribes assume administration of the federal regulatory
program, Section 404 permit applicants seek permits from the state or tribe rather than the federal government. States and tribes are
in many cases located closer to the proposed activities and are often more familiar with local resources, issues, and needs. Even
when a state assumes permitting under Section 404, the Corps of Engineers retains jurisdiction under Section 10 of the River and
Harbors Act for permits regarding navigable waters.
22For more information, see http://water.epa.gov/grants fmidiiig/wetlaiids/estp.efm.
493
-------
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,390.0) This streamlines the Wetlands Program Development grant program. The EPA
will work with states and tribes to target funds to core requirements while providing
flexibility to address particular priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Water Act, § 104(b)(3).
494
-------
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
495
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
SJJ5lf.Hfl-l.-l
N
SIJVJ.SS'.O
S
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$1,350,884.4
$1,391,237.0
$1,393,887.0
$2,650.u
Total Workyears
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program capitalizes state revolving loan funds
in all 50 states and Puerto Rico to finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater
systems and projects to improve water quality. The CWSRF is the largest source of federal funds
for states to provide loans and other forms of assistance for water quality projects including
construction of wastewater treatment facilities, water and energy efficiency projects, green
infrastructure projects, and agricultural best management practices (BMPs). This program also
includes a provision for set-aside funding for tribes to address serious wastewater infrastructure
needs and associated health impacts. It also provides direct grant funding for the District of
Columbia and territories. This federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other
sources of funds to address water quality needs.23 Additional tools are available to assist small and
disadvantaged communities. The CWSRF program is a key component in the EPA's efforts to
achieve innovative solutions to wastewater infrastructure needs and realize economic and
environmental benefits that will continue to accrue for years in the future.
The revolving nature of the funds and substantial state contributions have greatly multiplied the
federal investment. The EPA estimates that every federal dollar contributed thus far has resulted in
close to three dollars of investment in water infrastructure.24 As of June 2016, the CWSRF has
offered 38,457 assistance agreements to eligible recipients, providing over $118.7 billion in
affordable financing for a wide variety of wastewater infrastructure and other water quality
projects.25 In the past year alone, approximately $7.6 billion went to projects that are critical to the
continuation of the public health and water quality gains throughout the nation.26 The CWSRF
program measures and tracks the average national rate at which available funds are loaned, assuring
that the fund program expeditiously supports the EPA's water quality goals.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Administration is requesting over $1.3 billion in FY 2018. The budget provides robust funding
for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure. These funding levels further the President's
23 See http: //www, epa. gov/cwsrf for more information.
24 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/prodiiction/files/2016-12/docimients/iisl6.pdffor more information
25 Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System. US EPA, Office of Water, National Information
Management System Reports: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Washington, DC (As of June 30,2016).
26 Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System. US EPA, Office of Water, National Information
Management System Reports: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Washington, DC (As of June 30,2016).
496
-------
ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow States,
municipalities, and private entities to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments
that protect human health. The budget includes $2.3 billion for the State Revolving Funds, a $4
million increase over the FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution level.
This federal investment will continue to enable progress toward the nation's clean water needs and
infrastructure priorities and will contribute to the long-term environmental goal of attaining
designated uses. The EPA continues to work with states to meet several key objectives, such as:
• Linking projects to environmental results;
• Targeting assistance to small and underserved communities with limited ability to repay
loans; and
• Ensuring the CWSRFs remain reliable sources of affordable funding.
The FY 2018 President's Budget requests that 10-20 percent of the total CWSRF funds made
available to each state be used to provide additional subsidization to eligible recipients in the form
of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these). The
agency's request does not alter the subsidy provisions in Water Resources and Reform
Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121) requiring that subsidy be used to either support
affordability or to implement a process, material, technique, or technology that addresses water or
energy efficiency goals; mitigates stormwater runoff; or encourages sustainable project planning,
design, and construction.
In addition to capitalizing the CWSRF, a portion of the appropriation also will provide direct grants
to communities within the tribes and territories. These communities are in great need of assistance
given that their sanitation infrastructure lags behind the rest of the country causing significant
public health concerns. To ensure that sufficient resources are directed toward these communities
that face additional challenges, the EPA continues to request a Tribal set-aside of two percent, or
$30 million, whichever is greatest, of the funds appropriated in FY 2018. The EPA also continues
to request a territories set-aside of 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated from the CWSRF for
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas, and the United States Virgin
Islands.
The EPA requests the ability to use up to $2 million of the Tribal set-aside for training and technical
assistance related to operation and management of Tribal wastewater treatment works. The EPA
also requests the ability to use the Tribal and territorial set-asides to support planning and design
of treatment works and for the construction, repair, or replacement of privately owned decentralized
wastewater treatment systems serving one or more principal residences or small commercial
establishments, authority similar to that already available to states. Expanded support for planning
and design will protect the federal investment in wastewater infrastructure and ensure access to safe
wastewater treatment for tribes and territories that face significant challenges with sanitation
infrastructure. The ability for both the tribes and territories to construct, repair, or replace
decentralized wastewater treatment systems will allow the flexibility that these communities
require to provide wastewater infrastructure that is appropriate for the communities' unique
circumstances.
497
-------
The EPA will partner with states to ensure that the CWSRF continues to play an important role in
promoting efficient system-wide planning; improvements in technical, financial, and managerial
capacity; and the design, construction, and ongoing management of sustainable water
infrastructure.
The EPA also continues to support the national implementation of the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) American Iron and Steel (AIS) requirement. Through technical assistance, market
analysis, and stakeholder engagement, the AIS program administers the requirement for use of
domestic iron and steel products in water infrastructure projects.
The SRFs also are complemented by $20 million included in the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, through which the EPA will make direct loans to regionally or
nationally significant water infrastructure projects.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,650.0) This increase funds the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program at the FY
2016 enacted level and results in more support for states to finance needed water
infrastructure improvements.
Statutory Authority:
Title VI of the Clean Water Act; Title V of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014.
498
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
S!.5V2M
S
SI. (,41.0
FY 2017 CR Lead Infrastructure
$0.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
($100,000.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$853,752.7
$961,592.0
$863,233.0
($98,359.0)
Total Workyears
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is designed to assist public water
systems in financing the costs of drinking water infrastructure improvements needed to achieve or
maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements and to protect public
health. The 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment indicated a 20-year
capital investment need of $384.2 billion for public water systems that are eligible to receive
funding from state DWSRF programs. The capital investment need, based on the 2011 survey,
included approximately 52,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit non-
community water systems (including schools and churches).27 The needs reflect costs for repairs
and replacement of leaking transmission pipes, deteriorated storage and treatment equipment, and
other projects required to protect public health and to ensure compliance with the SDWA.
To reduce public health risks and to help ensure safe and reliable delivery of drinking water
nationwide, the EPA makes capitalization grants to states so that they can provide low-cost loans
and other assistance to eligible public water systems and maintain robust drinking water protection
programs. The program emphasizes that, in addition to maintaining the statutory focus on
addressing the greatest public health risks first, states can utilize additional tools to assist small
systems and those most in need on a per household basis according to state affordability criteria.
States also are encouraged to utilize additional tools to assist systems most in need.
The DWSRF program provides communities access to critical low-cost financing and offers a
limited subsidy to help utilities address long-term needs associated with water infrastructure. Most
DWSRF assistance is offered in the form of loans which water utilities repay from the revenues
they generate through the rates they charge their customers for service. Water utilities in many
communities may need to evaluate the rate at which they invest in drinking water infrastructure
repair and replacement to keep pace with their aging infrastructure, much of which may be
approaching the end of its useful life.28
To protect public health and wellbeing, utilities must provide continuous access to safe drinking
water. The delivery of safe drinking water is often taken for granted and is frequently undervalued,
27 http://water.epa.gov/grants fimding/dwsrf7upload/epa8 16rl3006.pdf.
28 https://www.epa.gov/sites/prodiictioii/files/2015-07/dociiiiierits/epa816rl3006.pdf.
499
-------
which presents considerable challenges to the completion of infrastructure upgrades that are
necessary to protect public health. More than 156,000 public water systems provide drinking water
to the approximately 320 million persons in the U.S. More than 97 percent of these public water
systems serve fewer than 10,000 persons.29 While most small systems consistently provide safe,
reliable drinking water to their customers, many small systems are facing a number of significant
challenges in their ability to achieve and maintain system sustainability. The EPA is emphasizing
attention to the needs of these small communities/systems while retaining state flexibility in the
management of their funds. The EPA continues its small systems focus by working closely with
state programs to improve public water system sustainability and public health protection for
persons served by small water systems.
These approaches have resulted in high system compliance; 90 percent of community water
systems (CWSs) met all applicable health-based standards, achieving the FY 2016 target. However,
continuing this success in many small systems will be a challenge, given aging infrastructure,
difficulties in complying with regulatory requirements, workforce shortages/high-turnover,
increasing costs, and declining rate bases. In FY 2016, small community water system violations
made up 94 percent30 of the overall violations from all size systems. In addition, while the 87
percent target was exceeded, only 88 percent of the Indian Country population received drinking
water that met all applicable health-based standards.
State Set-Asides
States have considerable flexibility to tailor their DWSRF program to their unique circumstances.
This flexibility ensures that each state has the opportunity to carefully and strategically consider
how best to achieve the maximum public health protection. For example, states may set aside and
award funds for targeted activities that can help them implement and expand their drinking water
programs. The four DWSRF set-asides31 are: Small System Technical Assistance (up to 2 percent),
Administrative and Technical Assistance32 (up to 4 percent, $400,000 or l/5th percent of the current
valuation of the fund, whichever is greater), State Program Management (up to 10 percent), and
Local Assistance and Other State Programs (up to 15 percent). Taken together, approximately 31
percent of a state's DWSRF capitalization grant may be set aside for activities other than
infrastructure construction. These set asides enable states to improve water system operation and
management, emphasizing institutional capacity as a means of achieving sustainable water system
operations. Historically, the states have set aside an annual average of 16 percent of the funds
awarded to them for program development, of which 4 percent is used to administer the program;
however, over the past three years, states have increased their set-asides taken to around 20 percent.
The federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address
drinking water infrastructure needs. States are required to provide a 20 percent match for their
capitalization grant. Some states elect to leverage their capitalization grants through the public debt
markets to enable the state to provide more assistance. These features, coupled with the revolving
fund design of the program, have enabled the states to provide assistance equal to 180 percent of
29 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/driiik/sdwisfed/pivottables.cfiii
30 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/driiik/sdwisfed/pivottablesxfiii
31 https://www.epa. gov/drinkiiigwatersiffhow-diinknig-water-state-revolving-fund-works# tab-5
32 https://www.c0ngress.g0v/bill/l 14th-congress/senate-bill/612/text
500
-------
the federal capitalization invested in the program since its inception in 1997. In other words, for
every one dollar the federal government invests in this program, the states, in total, have been able
to deliver $1.80 in assistance to water systems. In addition, the DWSRF's rate of funds utilized (the
cumulative dollar amount of loan agreements divided by cumulative funds available for projects)
was 95 percent in 2016, exceeding its target of 89 percent.
National Set-Asides
Prior to allotting funds to the states, the EPA is required to reserve certain national level set-asides.33
Two million dollars must, by statute, be allocated to small systems monitoring for unregulated
contaminants to facilitate small water system compliance with the monitoring and reporting
requirements of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR). Historically, a
three-year sampling period occurs within each five-year monitoring cycle. During the sampling
period, fund utilization exceeds the annual appropriation of $2 million and the carry-over reserve
funds from non-sampling years become essential to complete the small system monitoring efforts.
The EPA will reserve up to 2 percent, or $20 million, whichever is greater, of appropriated funds
for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages. These funds are awarded either directly to tribes or,
on behalf of tribes, to the Indian Health Service through interagency agreements. Additionally, the
EPA will continue to set aside up to 1.5 percent for territories.34
In addition, the law35 requires that none of the funds made available by a drinking water state
revolving fund as authorized by Section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12)
shall be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water
system unless all of the iron and steel products used in the project are produced in the United States.
The law provides further that the Administrator may retain up to 0.25 percent of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds for
carrying out the provisions described in the law for management and oversight of the requirements
of this section.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA is requesting $863 million for the DWSRF to help finance critical
infrastructure improvement projects to public drinking water systems. The budget provides robust
funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure. These funding levels further the
President's ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow States,
municipalities, and private entities to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments
that protect human health. The budget includes $2.3 billion for the State Revolving Funds, a $4
million increase over the FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution level.
This request reflects the documented needs for drinking water infrastructure and the need to
improve infrastructure in small communities and will help the programs reach more communities
33 Safe Drinking Water Act Sections 1452(i)(l), 1452(i)(2), 1452(j), and 1452(o), as amended.
34 For more information, please see:
https://www.cfda. gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=d33d92f2df290e0c2365599cb09f0669
35 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 16, 2015.
501
-------
due to the revolving nature of the funds. The EPA will continue to foster its strong partnership with
the states to provide small system technical assistance, with a focus on rule compliance, operational
efficiencies, and system sustainability to ensure clean and safe water. In FY 2018, the EPA will
continue its effort to build the capacity of local utilities and existing state programs to expand their
contribution to the array of funding options to meet future infrastructure needs. The requested
funding for this program will support critical infrastructure investments to rebuild and enhance
America's drinking water infrastructure.
In FY 2018, appropriated DWSRF funds again will be allocated to the states in accordance with
each state's proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need based on the 2015 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey. The EPA also has published data concerning the drinking water
infrastructure needs of water systems serving tribes and Alaskan Native Villages. As directed by
the SDWA, the EPA uses the results of the survey to set the state DWSRF allocations every four
years. Also, there is a statutory requirement that each state and the District of Columbia receive no
less than one percent of the allotment.
The EPA will continue to work to target a significant portion of SRF assistance to small and
underserved communities with limited ability to repay loans. In FY 2018, the EPA will work with
states to ensure not less than 20 and not more than 30 percent of a state's capitalization grant is
provided as additional subsidization. The EPA encourages states to utilize subsidization to assist
disadvantaged communities and sustainability efforts.
As a result of the EPA's efforts with states to fully utilize DWSRF funds available, unliquidated
obligations (ULOs) decreased by 64 percent, or approximately $1.2 billion, from FY 2012 to FY
2016. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to work with states with higher ULOs to address
institutional obstacles in order to eliminate or minimize their ULO amounts.
In FY 2018, the DWSRF program will continue to implement the Clean Water and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Sustainability Policy that focuses on promoting system-wide planning that helps
align water infrastructure system goals; analyzing a range of infrastructure alternatives, including
energy efficient alternatives; and ensuring that systems have the financial capacity and rate
structures to construct, operate, maintain, and replace infrastructure over time. As part of that
strategy, the federal dollars provided through the State Revolving Funds also will act as a catalyst
for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in technical, financial, and managerial capacity;
and the design, construction, and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure.
In FY 2018, the EPA is continuing emphasis on strengthening small system technical, managerial,
and financial capability through the implementation of the Capacity Development Program, the
Operator Certification Program, the Public Water System Supervision state grant program, and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The Capacity Development Program establishes a
framework within which states and water systems can work together to help these small systems
achieve the SDWA's public health protection objectives. The State Capacity Development
Programs are supported federally by the Public Water System Supervision state grant funds and the
set-asides established in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Since the 1996 Amendments,
states have implemented a variety of activities to assist small systems with their compliance
challenges and enhance their technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
502
-------
The SRFs also are complemented by $20 million included in the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, through which the EPA will make direct loans to regionally or
nationally significant water infrastructure projects.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,641.0) This change funds the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program at the
FY 2016 enacted level and results in more support for states to finance needed water
infrastructure improvements.
• (-$100,000.0) This change eliminates the one-time supplemental funding provided by
appropriation in FY 2017. These funds were awarded to help upgrade water infrastructure
in Flint, Michigan.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act, § 1452.
503
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
Sl'J.-l'J'J.'J
SI'J.'JO2.0
so.o
(S ]<),<) ft 2.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 9,499.9
SI 9,962.0
so.o
(SI 9,962.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Alaska Rural and Native Village (ANV) program provides basic drinking water and sanitation
infrastructure in vulnerable rural and native Alaska communities. The EPA's grant to the State of
Alaska funds improvements and construction of drinking water and wastewater treatment
infrastructure facilities in ANV communities. The program also supports training, technical
assistance, and educational programs to improve the financial management and operation, and
maintenance of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure systems.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The State Revolving Funds are a
source of infrastructure funding that can continue to fund water system improvements in Alaska.
There also is potential for the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act to
provide support for small systems technical assistance.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$19,962.0) This funding change eliminates the federal funding for the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages program.
Statutory Authority:
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, § 303; Clean Water Act, § 113a.
504
-------
Brownfields Projects
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si tile and Tribal Assistance (iranls
.SiSW.iV
s 'v.S-is.n
SO V,000.0
(S10.S-IS.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$88,874.4
$79,848.0
$69,000.0
($10,848.0;
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Brownfields program awards grants and provides technical assistance to help states, tribes,
local communities, and other stakeholders involved in environmental revitalization and economic
redevelopment to work together to plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields.
Approximately 104 million people (roughly 33 percent of the U.S. population) live within three
miles of a Brownfields site that received EPA funding.36 As of April 2017, grants awarded by the
program have led to over 67,000 acres of idle land made ready for productive use and over 124,300
jobs and $23.6 billion leveraged.37
Under this program, the EPA will provide funding for: 1) assessment cooperative agreements and
Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs); 2) cleanup cooperative agreements; 3) cooperative
agreements for Revolving Loan Funds (RLF) and supplemental funding for existing, high-
performing RLFs; 4) Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT)
cooperative agreements; and 6) research, training, and technical assistance to communities for
Brownfields-related activities, including Land Revitalization.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will build on current work to revitalize communities across the country by
providing financial and technical assistance to assess, cleanup, and plan reuse at brownfield sites.
The Brownfields program will continue to foster federal, state, Tribal, local, and public-private
partnerships to return properties to productive economic use. In future years, the activities described
below will leverage approximately 5,865 jobs and $1.1 billion in other funding sources.38
• Funding will support at least 77 assessment cooperative agreements (estimated $20.0
million) that recipients may use to inventory, assess, and conduct cleanup and reuse
37 U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management Estimate 2015. Data collected includes: (1) site information as of the end
of FY13; and (2) census data from the 2007-2013 American Community Survey, https://www.epa.gov/aboiitepa/population-
siirrounding-12216-brownfield-sites-received-epa-funding
37 The EPA's ACRES database.
38 U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management Estimate. All estimates of outputs and outcomes are supported by the
data that is entered by cooperative agreement recipients via the EPA's Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange
System (ACRES) database.
505
-------
planning at brownfields sites, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2). Approximately 462
site assessments will be completed under these agreements.
The EPA will provide $6.2 million for TBAs in up to 62 communities without access to
other assessment resources or those that lack the capacity to manage a brownfields
assessment grant. There is special emphasis for small and rural communities to submit
requests for this funding to ensure equal access to brownfields assessment resources. These
assessments will be performed through contracts and interagency agreements, as authorized
by CERCLA 104(k)(2).
Funding will support approximately 33 direct cleanup cooperative agreements (estimated
$6.5 million) to enable eligible entities to clean up recipient owned properties as authorized
under CERCLA 104(k)(3).
The agency will provide $7 million for 14 new RLF cooperative agreements. The funding
enables recipients to make loans and subgrants for the cleanup of brownfield sites and
establish a sustainable RLF program as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3) and (4).
Approximately 28 sites will be cleaned up under the agreements. Additionally, the agency
will provide $7 million in supplemental funding to approximately 18 existing high
performing RLF recipients. These supplemental awards will lead to approximately 36
additional sites cleaned up.
EWDJT cooperative agreements (estimated $3.0 million) will provide funding for
approximately 15 cooperative agreements as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6). This
funding will provide environmental job training for citizens to take advantage of new jobs
created as a result of brownfield assessment, cleanup, and revitalization in their
communities. The FY 2018 funding request will lead to approximately 735 people trained
and 510 placed in jobs.
Funding also will support assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks
and other petroleum contamination found on brownfields properties (estimated $17.3
million) for up to approximately 8 TBAs and approximately 72 brownfields assessment,
RLF and cleanup cooperative agreements, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2) and (3).
The Brownfields statute requires the program to select the highest ranked proposals. In order
to meet this requirement, the EPA requests flexibility to use up to 25 percent of its CERCLA
104(k) funding to address petroleum contaminated sites versus the exact 25 percent
identified by statute. This flexibility will allow the EPA to select the highest risk projects
and meet the demand of the communities applying for the various brownfields grants.
Hazardous substances account for approximately 68 percent of all brownfields funding
requests in the past three years, while the demand for petroleum funding hovers around 32
percent.
Funding also will support additional training, research, technical assistance cooperative
agreements, interagency agreements, and contracts to support states, tribes, and
communities (estimated $2.0 million) for both the Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Programs and other assistance mechanisms, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6).
506
-------
• All estimates of outputs and outcomes are supported by the data that is entered by
cooperative agreement recipients via the ACRES database and analyzed by the EPA.
Maintenance of ACRES, focus on the input of high quality data, and robust analysis
regarding program outcomes and performance will continue to be a priority during FY 2018.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10,848.0) This change is a reduction in funding for TBAs, RLF grants, and cleanup
grants.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, §§ 101, 104,
107.
507
-------
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
N.\\ '50.5
N -IV.VOxO
SI 0.000.0
(S.W. VOxO)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S5.V750.5
S49.905.0
SI 0.000.0
(S39.905.0)
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Grant Program has provided cost-effective
emission reductions from existing diesel engines through engine retrofits, rebuilds, and
replacements; switching to cleaner fuels; idling reduction; and other clean diesel strategies. The
DERA program was initially authorized in Sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and reauthorized by the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2010.
From goods movement to building construction to public transportation, diesel engines are the
modern-day workhorse of the American economy. Diesel engines are extremely efficient and
power nearly every major piece of machinery and equipment on farms, construction sites, in
ports, and on highways. As the agency's heavy-duty highway and nonroad diesel engines
emissions standards came into effect in 2007 and 2008 respectively, new cleaner diesel engines
started to enter the nation's fleet. However, today there are still more than 10 million engines in
use that will continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. The EPA's
DERA program promotes strategies to reduce these emissions and protect public health, by
working with manufacturers, fleet operators, air quality professionals, environmental and
community organizations, and state and local officials. While the DERA grants accelerate the
pace at which dirty engines are retired or retrofitted, pollution emissions from the legacy fleet
also will be reduced over time without additional DERA funding as portions of the fleet turnover
and are replaced with new engines that meet modern emission standards. However, even with
attrition through fleet turnover, the agency estimates that approximately one million old diesel
engines would still remain in use in 2030.
Through FY 2013, the DERA program reduced the emissions of approximately 73,000 diesel
vehicles, vessels or pieces of equipment, reducing NOx by over 335,000 tons and PM by
14,700 tons. Over 450 million gallons of fuel were saved. Based on the EPA's experience to date,
every $1 million of DERA program grants/loans successfully leveraged as much as $3 million
in additional funding assistance. Retrofitting or replacing older diesel engines reduces particulate
matter (PM) emissions up to 95 percent, smog-forming emissions, such as hydrocarbons (HC)
and nitrogen oxide (NOx), up to 90 percent, and greenhouse gases up to 20 percent in the
upgraded vehicles with engine replacements. These projects have eliminated or will eliminate
tens of thousands of tons of pollution from the air and are targeted in areas that are
508
-------
disproportionately impacted by diesel emissions. According to these same estimates, every $1
spent retrofitting or replacing the oldest and most polluting diesel engines can lead to between
$5 and $21 in health benefits, improving the health of our most vulnerable citizens.39
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA will continue to target its traditional discretionary funding to direct DERA grants and
rebates to reduce diesel emissions in priority areas and areas of highly concentrated diesel pollution
with a primary focus on ports and school buses. EPA estimates that about 39 million people in the
U.S. currently live in close proximity to ports. These people can be exposed to air pollution
associated with emissions from diesel engines at ports including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
ozone, and air toxics, which can contribute to significant health problems—including premature
mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart and lung disease, increased cancer risk, and
increased respiratory symptoms - especially for children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and other
sensitive populations.40 School buses provide the safest transportation to and from school for more
than 25 million American children every day. However, diesel exhaust from these buses has a
negative impact on human health, especially for children who have a faster breathing rate than
adults and whose lungs are not yet fully developed. Discretionary funding will be split into two
categories. The first category allocates funds to a rebate program that was first established under
DERA's 2010 reauthorization. Through the rebate mechanism, the agency will more efficiently
and precisely target the awards toward improving children's health and turning over the nation's
school bus fleet. In addition, this rebate mechanism can be used to provide funding directly to
private fleets. The second category would allocate funds toward national grants focusing on
areas with poor air quality, especially those impacted most severely by ports and goods movement.
The EPA also will continue to track, assess, and report the results of DERA grants, such as
numbers of engines, emissions benefits, and cost-benefit information.41 Finally, the EPA will
continue to provide diesel emission reduction technology verification and evaluation and provide
that information to the public.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$39,905.0) This reduces the overall amount of discretionary DERA grant funding, directing
DERA grants and rebates to reduce diesel emissions in priority areas of highly concentrated
diesel pollution. The Volkswagen settlement includes an option to use trust funds as a
voluntary match for DERA state and Tribal grants.
Statutory Authority:
Energy Policy Act of 2005, §§ 741, 791-797; Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010.
39 Third Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emission Reduction Program,
https://nepis.epa. gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi?Dockev=P 100QHMK.pdf.
40 EPA's National Port Strategy Assessment Report of 2016
https://www.epa.gov/ports-initiative/national-port-strategy-assessment
41 List of all awards under DERA can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/higMights.htm.
509
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
SHU-lxf,
S'J.'JSI.O
so.o
(sv.vxui)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
SI 0,345.6
S9.9X 1.0
so.o
(S9.9X 1.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure program funds planning, design, and construction of
water and wastewater treatment facilities along the border with all projects benefiting communities
on the U.S. side of the border.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. The State Revolving Funds are a
source of infrastructure funding that can continue to fund water system improvements in U.S.
communities along the border.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,981.0) This funding change eliminates the Mexico Border Water Infrastructure
program.
Statutory Authority:
Treaty entitled "Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States
on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, August
14, 1983."
510
-------
Targeted Airshed Grants
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Si ale and 1'ribul Assistance (iranls
S'J.'JJ-/.-/
SI'J.'JO2.0
so.o
(S ]<),<) ft 2.0)
Tolal Miktgcl Aulliorily Obligations
S9.9.M.I
SI 9,962.0
so.o
(SI 9,962.0)
Total Workyears
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
In FY 2016, this program requested applications for $20 million in competitive grant funding to
reduce air pollution in nonattainment areas that were ranked as the top five most polluted areas
relative to annual ozone or PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as well as the
top five areas relative to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the highest design values greater than
35 micrograms per cubic meter. This program assisted air control agencies in developing plans,
conducting demonstrations, and implementing projects in order to reduce air pollution in these
nonattainment areas.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources have been eliminated for this program in FY 2018. States can continue to fund work
through the EPA's core air grant programs and statutes.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$19,962.0) This funding change eliminates the Targeted Airshed Grants program.
Statutory Authority:
P-L. 114-113.
511
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Fund
Resource Summary Table 514
Program Area: Water Quality Protection 515
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 516
512
-------
513
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Fund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Fund
Budget Authority
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
Total Workyears
0.0
12.0
12.0
0.0
Bill Language: WIFIA
For the cost of direct loans and for the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014, $17,000,000 to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of1974: Providedfurther, That these funds
are available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, including
capitalized interest, and total loan principal, including capitalized interest, any part of which is to
be guaranteed, not to exceed $2,073,000,000.
In addition, fees authorized to be collected pursuant to sections 5029 and 5030 of the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 shall be deposited in this account, to remain
available until expended, for the purposes provided in such sections.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs,
notwithstanding section 5033 of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014,
$3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2019. Note.—A full-year 2017 appropriation
for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget
assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L.
114-254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing
resolution.
Program Projects in WIFIA
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Water Quality Protection
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
Subtotal, Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
TOTAL, EPA
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
514
-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
515
-------
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
II tiler hifru.\lrnclnn' i'inuncc anil
hiiiovulioii I'untl
so.o
S 20,1)00.0
S20.000.0
SO.O
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
Total Workyears
0.0
12.0
12.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Nation is facing the challenge of finding sustainable financing for aging water infrastructure.
Dependable, available drinking water and sanitation in communities relies on working, modern
infrastructure, but leaking water collection and distribution systems, and inadequate drinking water
and wastewater treatment continue to plague municipalities across the country. To help address this
priority, Congress enacted the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA).1
The WIFIA program was designed to stimulate capital market investment, not supplant it, by
structuring WIFIA loans in a way that makes investment in projects attractive to market
participants.
The WIFIA program is authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to cover up to 49
percent of eligible costs for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects of regional or
national significance. The WIFIA program is designed to offer credit assistance with flexible terms
in order to attract private participation, encourage new revenue streams for infrastructure
investment, and allow public agencies to get more projects done. The WIFIA program requires a
small appropriation compared to its potential loan volume. With $20 million in appropriations, the
EPA could potentially provide approximately $1 billion in credit assistance, which would spur an
estimated $2 billion in total infrastructure investment.2 This makes the WIFIA program credit
assistance a powerful new tool to help address a variety of water infrastructure needs.
Eligible assistance recipients include, amongst others, corporations and partnerships, municipal
entities, and State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs. The WIFIA program will complement the
existing SRF programs as an additional source of low-cost capital to help meet the United States'
growing water infrastructure needs and address key priorities.
It is expected that entities with complex water and wastewater projects will be attracted to the
WIFIA program and the EPA will work to provide assistance to a diverse set of projects.
1 WIFIA is a subtitle within the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA)
2 This approximation is based on notional calculations. Subsidy cost is determined on a loan-by-loan basis.
516
-------
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
The FY 2018 request of $20 million includes the necessary funds to finance WIFIA drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure projects (following the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 and OMB Circulars A-l 1 and A-129).
While the WIFIA program provides expansive project eligibilities, particular project attributes will
be emphasized in the project selection process. These attributes will be identified in the Notice of
Funding Availability, published after appropriations, and may include attributes such as: the extent
of private financing, the ability to serve regions with significant water resource challenges, the
regional or national significance, the likelihood that the project can proceed at an earlier date due
to WIFIA financing, and the extent to which the project uses new or innovative approaches, among
others.
Of the total $20 million request to implement the WIFIA program, $3 million is for the EPA's
management and operation administrative expenses, including contract support and associated
payroll for 12 FTE. The EPA headquarters will manage the WIFIA program. The request level
coupled with the requested fee expenditure authority allows the EPA to undertake the independent
aspects of loan intake and origination; project technical evaluation, including credit review,
engineering feasibility review, and loan term negotiation; risk management; portfolio management
and surveillance; and loan servicing for an initial set of projects. These funds associated with the
management and operation of the program will be available for two years.
The FY 2018 President's Budget also requests authority to use fee revenue as outlined in the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA), Sections 5029(a), 5030 (b), and 5030(c). The
EPA plans to collect fees in FY 2018. Fee revenue is for the cost of contracting with expert services
such as financial advisory, legal advisory, and engineering firms. The requested WIFIA program
fee expenditure authority would be in addition to the $3 million request for management and
operations administrative expenses.
For the FY 2017 appropriated funds, the EPA issued a Notice of Funding Availability requesting
prospective borrowers to submit Letters of Interest (LOI) on January 10, 2017. The EPA received
43 LOIs for direct loans by the April 10, 2017, deadline. The initial effort to evaluate project
proposals will take place in FY 2017. Due diligence and underwriting activities will continue into
FY 2018 with the expectation that funds will be obligated for water infrastructure projects in FY
2018.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Title V, Subtitle C; Further Continuing
and Security Assistances Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 114-254.
517
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - E-Manifest
Resource Summary Table 520
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 521
RCRA: Waste Management 522
518
-------
519
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2018 Pres Bud
FY 2017
v.
FY 2016
Annualized
FY 2018
FY 2017
Actuals
CR
Pres Bud
Annualized CR
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
System Fund
Budget Authority
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
Total Workyears
7.6
7.9
7.9
0.0
Bill Language: E-Manifest
For necessary expenses to carry out section 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6939g), including the development, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the hazardous
waste electronic manifest system established by such section, $3,674,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the sum herein appropriatedfrom the general fund shall be reduced as
offsetting collections under such section 3024 are received during fiscal year 2018, which shall
remain available until expended and be used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, so as
to result in a finalfiscal year 2018 appropriation from the generalfund estimated at not more than
$0: Provided further, That to the extent such offsetting collections received in fiscal year 2018
exceed $3,674,000, those excess amounts shall remain available until expended and be used for
necessary expenses in this appropriation.
Program Projects in E-Manifest
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
Subtotal, RCRA: Waste Management
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
TOTAL, EPA
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
520
-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
521
-------
RCRA: Waste Management
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(Dollars in T
lousands)
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
FY 2018
Pres Bud
FY 2018 Pres Bud
v.
FY 2017
Annualized CR
Hazardous II uslc Electronic Maui/est
System I 'nntl
S 2.VIU.2
S XhO'.D
so.o
'.<>)
Environmental Program & Management
$57,022.8
$58,986.0
$41,146.0
($17,840.0)
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
$59,933.0
$62,653.0
$41,146.0
($21,507.0)
Total Workyears
315.8
332.7
205.9
-126.8
Program Project Description:
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), companies that ship hazardous waste
must track and report those shipments. Currently, the estimated five million shipments of hazardous
waste each year are tracked via a paper process. This creates a burden on companies, limits access
to information, and increases the potential for errors.
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act, Public Law 112-
195), enacted on October 5, 2012, requires the EPA to develop a fee-based electronic hazardous
waste manifest system. The EPA estimates the e-Manifest system will reduce the burden associated
with paper manifests by between 300,000 and 700,000 hours, saving state and industry users more
than $75 million annually.1 The e-Manifest system will provide better knowledge of waste
generation and final disposition, enhanced access to manifest information, and greater transparency
for the public about hazardous waste shipments.
In FY 2014, Congress established the "Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund" to carry
out the activities necessary to implement the e-Manifest program, including system development,
rulemaking, and advisory committee establishment. Once this system is in place, the collected fees
will support the continued development and operation of the program.
FY 2018 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2018, the EPA will finalize and launch the e-Manifest system. To complete development and
begin operation with sufficient resources, the EPA requests an upfront appropriation of $3.67
million. The agency will collect and deposit e-Manifest system user fees received in FY 2018 to
reimburse the federal government for its upfront appropriation; this will result in a net appropriation
of $0 by the end of the fiscal year. The EPA will utilize any excess collections for necessary
program expenses.
1 From a 2009 programmatic estimate, cited in Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Manifest System: Electronic Manifests: Final Rule. 40 CFR § 260,262, 263, 264, 265, and 271.
522
-------
The agency continues to implement a modular approach to e-Manifest system development,
utilizing agile software development best practices. This approach relies fundamentally on
stakeholder input so that the production-ready system is familiar to users and meets their
expectations. The EPA will continue to employ an agile, user-centric approach so that there is
continuous improvement even after the system launches.
In FY 2018, the EPA plans to perform the following key activities:
• Deliver the e-Manifest system in June 2018 that accepts hybrid, electronic, and paper
manifests.
• Engage industry, regions, and states to train users and stakeholders on the e-Manifest system
and prepared them for system launch;
• Complete the final User Fee rule;
• Develop the appropriate accounting and financial reporting interfaces needed to collect and
manage user fees and comply with the auditing requirements of the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Act; and
• Convene the e-Manifest Advisory Board, consisting of state and industry stakeholders and
IT experts, to provide input on system development and on the final user fee regulation.
A list of FY 2018 performance measures and targets is located in the FY 2018 Performance
Measures tab.
FY 2018 Change from FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,667.0/ -7.9 FTE) The EPA requests an upfront appropriation of $3.67 million that will
net to $0 after reimbursing the federal government using collected e-Manifest system user
fees. The upfront appropriation will cover necessary costs to implement and operate the e-
Manifest program. The EPA will utilize any excess collections for necessary program
expenses.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, 42 United States Code 6901 et seq. -
Sections 3004, 3005, 3024, 8001.
523
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents -Performance Measures
FY 2018 Performance Measures 526
524
-------
525
-------
FY 2018 Performance Measures
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target1
Unit
Air Quality
(PM G18) Percentage of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emission Reports verified by EPA before publication.
10
Percent
(PM M9) Cumulative percentage reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
20
Percent
Reduction
(PM M92) Cumulative percentage reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by
population and AQI value.
85
Percent
Reduction
(PM MM9) Cumulative percentage reduction in the average number of days during the ozone season that the ozone standard is exceeded in
non-attaimnent areas, weighted by population.
73
Percent
Reduction
(PM M91) Cumulative percentage reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
33
Percent
Reduction
(PM A01) Annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02) from electric power generation sources.
3,000,000
Tons Emitted
(PM MM6) Total number of backlogged SIPs remaining.
100-200
Number of
Backlogged
SIPs
(PM MM7) Cumulative Percent of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) removed from the historical backlog.
84
Cumulative
Percentage
Removed
(PM M94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
78
Percent
(PM M95) Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
88
Percent
(PM M96) Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
75
Percent
(PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
26
Percent
Reduction
(PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
55
Percent
Reduction
(PM S01) Remaining US Consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer,
measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
<1,520
ODP Tons
(PM R35) Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery
operations.
80
Percent
(PM R36) Average time before availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an emergency.
0.3
Days
1 FY 2018 targets may be revised as a result of streamlining and efficiency improvements.
526
-------
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target1
Unit
Clean and Safe Waters
(PM aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
92
Percent
(PM ape) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
89
Percent
(PM aph) Percent of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding
performance or those ground water systems approved by the primacy agency to provide 4-log treatment of viruses).
82
Percent
(PM apm) Percent of community water systems that meets all applicable health-based standards through approaches including effective
treatment and source water protection.
90
Percent
(PM aps) Percent of Classes I, II and III salt solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within
180 days, thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
74
Percent
(PM apt) Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC) [approximately 23,640 in
FY 2010] that are closed or permitted (cumulative).
28,590
Wells
(PM dw2) Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards.
95
Percent
(PM pil) Percent of population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (served by community water systems) that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards, measured on a four-quarter rolling average basis.
80
Percent
(PM E) Percent of the population in Indian Country served by community water systems that receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards.
87
Percent
(PM L) Number of water body segments identified by states in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
4,146
Segments
(PM bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
95
Percent
(PM bpl) Percent of high-priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
80
Percent
(PM bpv) Percent of high-priority EPA and state NPDES permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year.
80
Percent
(PM bpw) Percent of states and territories that, within the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable
to the EPA that reflect new scientific information from the EPA or sources not considered in previous standards.
69.6
Percent
(PM bpx) Percent of areas associated with state-identified priority waters that are addressed by an EPA-approved TMDL or accepted plan or
approach designed to achieve or maintain water quality standards.
35
Percent
(PM wq2) Remove the specific causes of water body impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
13,252
Causes
(PM wq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative).
543
Watersheds
(PM 4E) In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states, and tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands each year under the Clean
Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. ("No net loss" of wetlands is based on requirements for mitigation in CWA 404 permits and not
the actual mitigation attained.)
No Net Loss
Acres
527
-------
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target
Unit
Land Cleanup
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
1,300
Properties
(PM B32) Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
130
Properties
(PM B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse.
5,500
Acres
(PM B34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
7,000
Jobs
(PM B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
1.1
Dollars
(Billions)
(PM CH2) Number of risk management plan inspections conducted.
175
Inspections
(PM HWO) Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
70
Facilities
(PM PCB) Number of approvals issued for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) cleanup, storage and disposal activities.
160
Approvals
(PM CI) Score on annual Core NAR.
75
Percent
(PM 137) Number of Superfund removals completed.
175
Removals
(PM 337) Percentage of all Federal Response Plan (FRP) inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
60
Percent
(PM 338) Percentage of all Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are
brought into compliance.
60
Percent
(PM 115) Number of Superfund remedial site assessments completed.
375
Assessments
(PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human exposures brought under control.
8
Sites
(PM CA1) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.
94
Percent
(PM CA2) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control.
88
Percent
(PM CA5) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with final remedies constructed.
70
Percent
(PM CA6) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with corrective action performance standards attained.
33
Percent
(PM 112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.
7,000
Cleanups
(PM 113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian
country.
16
Cleanups
(PM 141) Number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed.
11
Completions
(PM 152) Number of Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration brought under control.
11
Sites
(PM 170) Number of remedial action projects completed at Superfund sites.
95
Projects
528
-------
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target
Unit
(PM FF1) Percentage of Superfund federal facility sites construction complete.
83
Percent
(PM S10) Number of Superfund sites made ready for anticipated use site-wide.
40
Sites
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal regulatory enviromnental programs in Indian country.
21
Percent
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved enviromnental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country.
50
Percent
Ensuring Safety of Chemicals
(PM J11) Reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphates and carbamate insecticides in the general
population.
30
Percent
(PM 012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to rodenticides.
75
Percent
(PM Oil) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
400
Decisions
(PM 091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due date).
99
Percent
(PM 10A) Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process.
95
Percent
(PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides.
23
Percent
(PM 164) Number of pesticide registration review dockets opened.
0
Dockets
(PM 230) Number of pesticide registration review final work plans completed.
25
Work Plans
(PM 247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
enviromnent.
100
Percent
(PM 998) EPA's TRI program will work with partners to conduct data quality checks to enhance accuracy and reliability of enviromnental
data.
600
Quality
Checks
(PM CI9) Percentage of CBI claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate, as they are
submitted.
100
Percent
(PM 268) Percent of selected urban watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmark maximum concentrations for three key pesticides of
concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl).
0, 0,0
Percent
(PM 269) Percent of selected agricultural watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmark maximum concentrations for two key pesticides
of concern (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos).
0,0
Percent
(PM 240) Maintain timeliness of FIFRA Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
45
Days
(PM 276) Percent of registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk
prior to consultation with DOC and DOI.
70
Percent
Enforcement and Compliance
(PM 409) Number of federal inspections and evaluations.
9,500
Inspections/
Evaluations
529
-------
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target
Unit
(PM 410) Number of civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases initiated.
1,750
Cases
(PM 411) Number of civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases concluded.
1,500
Cases
(PM 412) Percentage of open consent decrees reviewed for overall compliance status.
75
Percent
(PM 078) Percentage of all Superfund statute of limitations cases addressed at sites with unaddressed past Superfund costs equal to or greater
than $500,000.
100
Percent
(PM 285) Percentage of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government where EPA reaches a
settlement or takes an enforcement action before starting a remedial action.
99
Percent
(PM 400) Millions of pounds of air pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
120
Million
Pounds
(PM 402) Millions of pounds of water pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
53
Million
Pounds
(PM 405) Millions of pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
150
Million
Pounds
(PM 417) Millions of cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media EPA lias obtained commitments to clean up as a result of
concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions.
140
Million Cubic
Yards
(PM 404) Millions of pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
1.7
Million
Pounds
(PM 418) Percentage of criminal cases having the most significant health, enviromnental, and deterrence impacts.
45
Percent
(PM 419) Percentage of criminal cases with individual defendants.
75
Percent
(PM 420) Percentage of criminal cases with charges filed.
35
Percent
(PM 421) Percentage of conviction rate for criminal defendants.
85
Percent
Research
(PM AC1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Air and Energy research program.
100
Percent
(PM AC2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients for use in improving air quality.
100
Percent
(PM CS1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Chemical Safety for Sustainability research program.
100
Percent
(PM CS2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve their capability to advance the environmentally
sustainable development, use, and assessment of chemicals.
100
Percent
(PM HC1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Sustainable and Healthy Communities research program.
100
Percent
(PM HC2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients, partners, and stakeholders for use in pursuing their sustainability goals.
100
Percent
(PM HS1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Homeland Security research program.
100
Percent
530
-------
Performance Measure
FY 2018
Provisional
Target
Unit
(PM HS2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve their capabilities to respond to contamination
resulting from homeland security events and related disasters.
100
Percent
(PM RA1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Human Health Risk Assessment research program.
100
Percent
(PM RA2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners for use in informing human health decisions.
100
Percent
(PM RA6) Number of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used HHRA peer-reviewed assessments (IRIS, PPRTVs, exposure
assessments and other assessments)
20
Number
(PM RA7) Annual milestone progress score for completing draft IRIS health assessments.
10
Score
(PM RA8) Annual progress score for finalizing IRIS health assessments.
5
Score
(PM SW1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research program.
100
Percent
(PM SW2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve the Agency's capability to ensure clean and
adequate supplies of water that support human well-being and resilient aquatic ecosystems.
100
Percent
Enabling and Support Programs
(PM 052) Number of major EPA enviromnental systems that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and
quality checking of data.
85
Systems
(PM 053) States, tribes and territories will be able to exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time, using standards and automated data-
quality checking.
110
Users
(PM 999) Total number of active unique users from states, tribes, laboratories, regulated facilities and other entities that electronically report
enviromnental data to EPA through CDX.
100,000
Users
(PM 35A) Enviromnental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction.
196
Actions
(PM 35B) Enviromnental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action.
460
Recommen-
dations
(PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations.
160
Percent
(PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
87
Actions
531
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment
Executive Overview 534
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality 553
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters 571
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development 594
Goal 4: Ensuring The Safety Of Chemicals And Preventing Pollution 609
Goal 5: Protecting Human Health And The Environment By Enforcing Laws And
Assuring Compliance 626
Performance: Research 632
Performance: Enabling and Support Programs 641
Cross-Agency Strategies 645
532
-------
533
-------
FY 2016 Annual Performance Report
Executive Overview
EPA's FY 2016 Annual Performance Report (APR) presents the environmental and program
performance results the agency achieved in FY 2016 against the annual budget performance
measures and targets established in its FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification. In compliance with requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and Office of Management and Budget implementing
guidance, EPA's FY 2016 APR presents progress under the five goals, thirteen strategic obj ectives,
and four cross-agency strategies established in the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan. As
illustrated in the performance management framework figure below, EPA analyzes annual
performance results and progress toward longer-term strategic objectives, as an integral part of
formulating and justifying agency resource requests.
Organization of the FY 2016 APR
EPA's FY 2016 APR is integrated throughout the FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification. Supplementing this Program Performance and Assessment section:
• The Introduction and Overview section provides EPA's mission statement and
organizational structure;
• The Goal and Objective Overview section presents FY 2016 performance results along
with trend data from prior years; and
• Appropriation Program/Project Fact Sheets include selected significant FY 2016
performance results as context for budget decisions.
This Program Performance and Assessment section (Tab 13) serves as the primary component of
EPA's FY 2016 APR. Following this Executive Overview, it provides a detailed performance
measure data table, which is organized by strategic goal along with associated strategic objectives
and annual budget performance measures. The table summarizes long-term progress toward each
strategic objective and presents results, including explanations for missed or exceeded targets, for
each annual budget performance measure. Each strategic goal is introduced by a Goal-at-a-Glance
overview, which provides high-level FY 2016 results and funding information. This section also
includes a summary of progress longer term under each of EPA's four cross-agency strategies.
To supplement the FY 2016 APR, please refer to EPA's FY 2016 Agency Financial Report (AFR),
which includes information on EPA's FY 2016 financial performance.
534
-------
EPA's Performance Management Framework
r
FY 2014*2018Strategic Ptan
ft 2016-201? Agency Priority
Coot*
Strategic
A
Strategic
Planning
Pi" 2018 EP A Annual Plan and
Budgft
Annua! Planning
and Budgeting
k
Ft' 2016-201 ? Agency PriorWy
tio.il Action Plans
FY 2016 Crow-AljewySraWO' 4n«J
Artion Plans
V
FV 2016 AlUituJ PwfQITFUfK*
Seport/JliRhtiRhes
FY 2016 Ageniy Fiiunftai Report
• Agency Management Integrity
Rr-|h>n and CertifWatiam
¦ Annu-jJ Audit Haai*Ł«nent
Program hlvaSu.iiion
Deputy Ad nunkstrator Fr-rfoemaistf
Progress Reviews/Strategic Reviews
FY 2(116 Cross-Ajjency Sbalffli1
Progress RejHKls
Assessment
and Reporting
(Accountability)
>v
\
Operations
and Execution )
FY 2016-2017 National
Program Manager (kudanre
FY 2016 Regional Performance
Commiiiifieiic*/Annual
Commitment System (ACS)
FY 2016 EPA and
State/Tribal CirontWorlc
Plans
J
Performance Management in FY 2016
During FY 2016, EPA implemented a number of key initiatives to further strengthen its
performance management. Notable efforts included:
Progress Toward Agency Priority Goals. Agency Priority Goals (APGs) designate priorities for
agency attention where leadership wants to accomplish near-term achievements or results. EPA
reports progress on APG milestones and targets at www.performance.gov. In FY 2016, EPA began
work on five FY 2016-2017 APGs:
• Advance resilience in the nation's water infrastructure, while protecting public health and
the environment, particularly in high-risk and vulnerable communities;
• Clean up contaminated sites to enhance the livability and economic vitality of
communities;
• Assess and reduce risks posed by chemicals and promote the use of safer chemicals in
commerce;
• Strengthen environmental protections through business process improvements enabled by
joint governance and technology; and
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks
535
-------
At the end of FY 2016, the agency was on track for three APGs and achieved mixed results for
two. Key results achieved include:
• Providing resilience training and tools to nearly 4,200 operators of small water utilities to
address aging infrastructure, significant weather events, and other issues;
• Cleaning up more than 9,600 additional sites and making them ready for anticipated use;
• Completing more than 1,000 chemical assessments related to pesticides and commercially
available chemicals;
• Working with state and tribal partners through E-Enterprise for the environment to create
web-based mechanisms and mobile phone applications which increase access to
information and reduce regulatory compliance and reporting burden; and
• Completing 136 confirmatory tests on emissions and fuel consumption for light-duty
vehicles;
EPA faced challenges, however, in completing chemical assessments. The agency did not
complete any Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) assessments of existing chemicals in FY
2016, as the program's emphasis shifted to implementing the new requirements and timelines for
chemical risk evaluation established under the TSCA amendments enacted in June 2016. The
agency will use the tools in the new law to ensure the safety of chemicals in or entering the
marketplace. Other chemical assessments under this APG, however, were on track.
Contributions to Cross-Agency Priority Goals. Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals are
designed to overcome barriers and achieve better performance than one agency can achieve on its
own. The President's Management Council, comprising agency Chief Operating Officers, assessed
progress on a monthly basis and included EPA's Acting Deputy Administrator's active
engagement in FY 2016. Updates on government-wide CAP goals are available at
www, perform an ce. gov. EPA participated in most of the 15 CAP goals, including the 8 CAP goals
set to achieve the most pressing management priorities within the federal government—such as
better customer service, smarter IT, and expanding shared services across federal agencies—and
the CAP goal to modernize the federal infrastructure permitting and review process for major
infrastructure projects. Under the People and Culture CAP goal, for example, EPA worked with
the Office of Personnel Management to add EPA-specific, employee-inspired questions in the FY
2016 Employee Viewpoint Survey and achieved its highest-ever response rate. Notably, EPA's
Employee Engagement Index increased by four percentage points, one of the highest
improvements for any large federal agency.
Introduced Enterprise Risk Management Through Redesigned Strategic Reviews. EPA
redesigned its FY 2016 strategic reviews by implementing a new, structured approach that:
• Focused on risks, challenges, and opportunities and actions the agency might take to
address them;
• Aligned strategic reviews with agency internal control reviews; and
• Expanded the scope of the strategic reviews to include, for the first time, EPA's mission-
support and research programs.
536
-------
This effort laid the groundwork for developing EPA's Enterprise Risk Management Program. As
a result of the strategic reviews, agency senior leaders identified 69 risks impeding progress toward
agency strategic goals and objectives. They then ranked the risks and identified the top five
enterprise risk areas—human resources, information technology, information management,
acquisitions/contracting, and state/tribal program implementation and EPA oversight—which
were the focus of discussion at an agency-wide FY 2016 Strategic Review Midyear Senior
Leadership Meeting. The agency established co-champions and implementation teams to identify
short- and longer-term actions EPA can take to mitigate the most critical enterprise-level risks.
Results of these efforts will inform development of the FY 2018-2022 EPA Strategic Plan and
annual planning and budget decisions for FY 2018-FY 2019.
Streamlined End-of-Year Performance Reporting and Analysis. In FY 2016, as a result of a
June 2015 Lean event, the agency completed implementation of a streamlined end-of-year data
gathering, analysis, and communication process to increase the value of performance analysis and
products to inform agency decision making. Metrics tracked over 8 months indicate that, as
compared to the agency's previous end-of-year process, steps involved in data gathering decreased
by 15 percent and days by 50 percent; steps involved in analysis decreased by 33 percent and days
by 60 percent; and steps involved in producing the APR decreased by 44 percent and days by 46
percent. Overall, customer satisfaction with the end-of-year process improved by 54 percent.
Implemented First Year of Two-Year National Program Manager Guidance. EPA
implemented the first year of the new 2-year National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance,
advancing a new era of state, local, tribal, and international partnerships—a cross-agency strategy
in th eFY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan. EPA conducted an on-line assessment of the key changes
for early engagement and flexibilities and analyzed agency and state feedback, which was largely
positive. The results informed development of the Technical Guidance on the FY 2018-2019 NPM
Guidance and Annual Commitment Process, which was issued in FY 2016. EPA also published
FY 2017 Exceptions-basedAddendums to the FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidances, which included only
39 key changes and maintained the integrity of the 2-year guidance process, consistent with the
recommendations of the NPM Guidance/National Environment Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS) Workgroup composed of state, regional, and national program representatives.
Piloted Strategic Foresight Project. EPA's Offices of the Chief Financial Officer and Science
Advisor convened an agency-wide Strategic Foresight Lookout Panel. The Panel identified eight
priority emerging issues and actionable recommendations from more than 80 topics to improve
the agency's planning and decision-making. EPA also developed a Community of Practice of more
than 550 members to build agency capacity and reinvigorate foresight as an integral element of
strategic and annual planning, budgeting, and program management. This pilot responded to
National Academy of Science, Science Advisory Board, and National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology recommendations to engage in strategic foresight to
anticipate future environmental problems and build EPA's resiliency in light of rapid technological
change. The pilot also aligns with government-wide efforts to incorporate strategic foresight as a
component of strategic and annual planning and analysis and enterprise risk management.
537
-------
Evidence and Evaluation
Summaries of program evaluations completed during FY 2016 and other evidence use are available
at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/fv-2016-program-evaluations. Program evaluations and
other evidence help provide the information EPA needs to ensure that its programs are meeting
their intended outcomes and allow the agency to support more effective and efficient operations.
By assessing how well a program is working and why, a program evaluation can help EPA identify
activities that benefit human health and the environment, provide the roadmap needed to replicate
successes, and identify areas needing improvement. This is particularly important for fostering
transparency and accountability.
FY 2016 Performance Data
In its FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, EPA committed to 185
annual performance measures/targets. These performance measures/targets and EPA's results are
presented in the following table, which includes explanations for missed targets and other results.
EPA reviews annual results in terms of long-term performance, and will carefully consider its FY
2016 results and adjust its program strategies and approaches accordingly.
FY2016 Performance Measure Results EpA's py 2016 Performance Results
As of December 31, 2016, data are available for
152 of the 185 FY 2016 budget performance
measures/targets.1 The agency met 111 of the
performance measures, 73 percent of the
performance measures for which data are
available. Working with state and local
governments, tribes, federal agencies, businesses,
and industry leaders, EPA made significant
progress toward the long-term strategic goals and
objectives established in its Strategic Plan.
Despite its best efforts, however, the agency
missed 41 of its FY 2016 performance
measures/targets. There are a number of reasons
for missed targets, including an unexpected
demand for resources or competing priorities; the impact of a changing workforce; the effect of
declining resources available for the agency's state, tribal, and local government partners; and
other factors. As an integral part of its performance management process, EPA will continue to
regularly review its performance, analyze results, and adjust FY 2017 and FY 2018 programmatic
approaches and targets as necessary.
1 Of EPA's 185 FY 2016 performance measures, 25 measures fall under the agency's enabling and support programs (including
the Offices of Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Information, and Inspector General) and the Office of
Research and Development. These measures are not reflected in the "Goal-at-a Glance" summaries which follow for each of EPA's
five strategic goals.
Batn Pending
Targets Hat Met
538
-------
Because final end-of-year data for some measures are not yet available, EPA is not able to report
on 33 of its 185 performance measures. Often environmental results do not become apparent within
a fiscal year, and assessment is a longer-term effort requiring information over time. Extensive
quality assurance/quality control processes can also delay the reporting of performance data. EPA
relies heavily on performance data obtained from state, tribal, and local agencies, all of which
require time to collect and review for quality. Data lags may also result when reporting cycles do
not correspond with the federal fiscal year on which this report is based, for example, data which
are reported biennially. Additional FY 2016 results will be available in the agency's FY 2017 APR,
which will be included in the FY 2019 Annual Performance Plan and the "Program Performance
and Assessment" section of the FY 2019 Congressional Justification.
Previous Fiscal Year Data Now Available
EPA can now report FY 2015 data that became available in FY 2016. In summary, final
performance results became available for 24 of the 34 FY 2015 performance measures for which
we lacked data at the end of FY 2015. Of these 24 performance measures, EPA met 19 and did not
meet 5 of the Agency's targets. Data remain unavailable for 9 measures.2 One measure was
discontinued.3
Summary of FY 2016 Performance Results
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 15
Not Met: 0
Data Pending: 15
Total Measures: 30
EPA advanced all four Goal 1 strategic objectives. The United States has steadily phased out the
use of ozone depleting substances. Working with partners and co-regulators, EPA developed and
implemented national programs that have reduced harmful air pollutants both indoors and
2 EPA expects to report FY 2015 data for six of these measures in the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report:
Performance Measure G02: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC02E) of greenhouse gas reductions in
the buildings sector; Performance Measure G16: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC02E) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the industry sector; Performance Measure 001: Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline; Performance Measure 002; Cumulative
percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline;
Performance Measure SMI: Tons of materials and products offsetting use of virgin resources through sustainable
materials management; and Performance Measure 143: Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk
pesticides. We anticipate that no FY 2015 data will become available for three measures: Performance Measure R50:
Percentage of existing homes with an operating radon mitigation system compared to the estimated number of homes
at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level; Performance Measure R51: Percentage of all new single-family homes (SFH)
in high radon potential areas built with radon reducing features; and Performance Measure bpx: Extent of priority
areas identified by each state that are addressed by EPA-approved TMDLs or alternative restoration approaches for
impaired waters that will achieve water quality standards.
3 Performance Measure R16: Percentage of parents of children with asthma aware of the EPA asthma program media
campaign.
539
-------
outdoors. And, EPA continues to protect human health and the environment from harmful and
avoidable radiation exposure.
Objective 1.1: Address Climate Change
EPA successfully implemented motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) standards (FY
2016-2017 APG), with automakers beating GHG standards for the fourth straight year and fuel
economy, or MPG, for Model Year 2015 new cars and trucks reaching its highest level ever in FY
2015 (most recent year with available data).4 More than 19,000 organizations and millions of
Americans teamed with EPA's climate partnership programs, preventing more than 416
MMTC02e of GHG emissions and reducing net energy bills by more than $31 billion in FY 2014
(most recent data).5 In addition, EPA supported climate-resilient investments in communities
across the country, meeting or exceeding targets to provide training, data, information, and tools
to integrate climate adaptation into their work.
Objective 1.2: Improve Air Quality
EPA continued to design and implement national programs that deliver significant reductions in
harmful air pollutants. These actions included setting health-based ambient air quality standards
grounded in scientific research, setting fuel and engine standards that improve air quality in
communities across the United States, developing regulations that reduce emissions of harmful
pollutants from sources that pose the greatest risk to communities, and engaging the public and
communities to address indoor air risks. Environmental indicators related to criteria pollutants and
air toxics showed improving outdoor air quality trends. For example, between 2000 and 2015
(most recent year with available data),6 national ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone
decreased 37 and 17 percent, respectively. Cleaner air prevents tens of thousands of premature
deaths, reduces heart attacks and hospital visits, alleviates hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks
among children and sensitive populations, and prevents millions of lost school and work days.7
Objective 1.3: Restore and Protect the Ozone Layer
The United States has outperformed its obligations under the Montreal Protocol and has made
steady progress in phasing out the use of ozone depleting substances. In FY 2015 (most recent
data), U.S. consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs) declined to 584 tons of ozone depleting
potential, well below the level of 1,520 tons required by the Montreal Protocol. As production of
ozone-depleting substances declines and demands for flexibility grow, EPA manages exemption
programs to address critical needs.
4 See: https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/trends-report.
5 See: U.S. EPA. (2016) Climate Protection Partnerships: 2014 Annual Report, www.ener gvstar. gov/publications.
6 Quality assured data for the criteria pollutants are available in early fall for the prior year. The air quality trends
report, Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2015. is available at:
https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2016/.
7 See: https://Avww.epa/gov/air-trends.
540
-------
Objective 1.4: Minimize Exposure to Radiation
EPA protected human health and the environment from harmful and avoidable radiation exposure
by developing radiation protection regulations and guidance; informing decision makers and the
public about ambient radiation through RadNet, EPA's radiation monitoring network; and
maintaining the readiness of its radiological emergency response program assets. While
preparedness for radiological emergencies remains strong (EPA achieved a score of 95 percent
readiness in FY 2016), maintaining scientific expertise in the radiological field continues to be a
challenge due to aging of the original Atomic Age workforce.
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 37
Not Met: 14
Data Pending: 4
Total Measures: 55
EPA made progress toward the two strategic objectives of Protecting Human Health and
Improving Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. EPA focused its efforts on addressing aging water
and sewer infrastructure challenges, protecting and restoring impaired waterbodies, strengthening
and promoting innovative solutions that reduce pollution, building capacity for state and tribal
water programs, promoting green infrastructure solutions, and training water stakeholders.
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
In FY 2016, 90.4 percent of our population served by community water systems received drinking
water that met all applicable health-based drinking water standards. Strategies for improved
compliance included targeted enforcement, technical and managerial support, and infrastructure
investments. The utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) has
consistently increased over the last few years. From 2014-2016 states signed a record amount of
funds into new loans. This resulted from EPA and state implementation of the 2014 Unliquidated
Obligation (ULO) Strategy, which led many states to develop agile cash flow models to more
accurately balance fund inflows and outflows.
EPA sponsored the 2016 Recreational Waters Conference to discuss issues related to human health
in waters used for recreation. EPA also issued draft recreational water quality criteria and/or
swimming advisories for the cyanotoxins microcystin and cylindrospermopsin that may result
from harmful algal blooms.
While America's drinking water remains among the safest in the world, emerging challenges to
maintain its safety are still present. These challenges include aging infrastructure, limited funding
and management capacity, degradation of drinking water sources from multiple factors (some
factors are out of EPA's control), risks from emerging contaminants, and threats associated with
drought and severe weather events affecting source water availability and quality.
To address these challenges, EPA is focused on new approaches to information management and
communications through the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal that enables drinking water
541
-------
utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies leading to more timely
and higher-quality monitoring data. EPA also released the Drinking Water Action Plan (PDF). The
proposed actions from this plan will modernize technology and infrastructure, provide consumers
with readily available information on drinking water quality, ensure robust and efficient oversight
of drinking water safety, prevent source water contamination before it happens, safeguard drinking
water against extreme weather events, and promote equity in access to safe drinking water and
public health protections.
Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems
In FY 2016, the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center made significant progress
promoting innovative finance solutions for the nation's aging water and sewer infrastructure. The
Center provided direct financial planning technical assistance to 10 communities across the
country and identified innovative Customer Assistance Programs (PDF) created by utilities to help
low and fixed income customers having difficulty paying their water and sewer bills.
Of all the water bodies across the nation that have been assessed and a possible source of
impairment identified, 85 percent of rivers and streams and 80 percent of lakes and reservoirs are
polluted by nonpoint sources. EPA advanced reductions of nutrient pollution through partnerships
with the animal agriculture industry including the Nutrient Recycling Challenge.8 EPA also
provided state and tribal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) programs with
technical assistance to develop specific elements in their CAFO program to improve manure
management.
An overwhelming majority of Americans—215 million (more than 70 percent)—live within two
miles of a polluted lake, river, stream or coastal area. Moreover, the rate at which new waters are
listed for water quality impairments exceeds the pace at which restored waters are removed from
the list, due to challenges in protecting and restoring watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Further,
EPA expects delays in restoration of impaired waterbodies due to the complexity of some
waterbodies. This complexity points toward the need for new approaches for assessing progress in
water quality. EPA is evaluating new approaches for measuring local improvements in water
quality to provide consistent methodology for measuring progress, and to more effectively track
water quality outcomes from investments in protection and restoration. These new approaches
will be complemented by new performance measures such as measuring the percent of priority
impaired water areas identified by each state that are addressed by EPA-approved Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) or alternative restoration approaches. This measure was established in FY
2015; in FY 2016, the first year when data is available, EPA exceeded the target for this measure.
Wetlands are important components of healthy ecosystems and contribute to the protection and
restoration of water quality. In May 2016, EPA released the National Wetland Condition
Assessment (NWCA) 2011: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Wetlands, the first national
evaluation of the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands. The study found that nearly half of
wetland area (48 percent) is in good condition; 32 percent is in poor condition; and the remaining
8 EPA is providing this link for informational purposes only and cannot attest to the accuracy of non-EPA information
provided by any third-party sites or any other linked site. EPA does not endorse any non-government websites,
companies, internet applications or any policies or information expressed therein.
542
-------
20 percent is in fair condition. The NWCA strengthens EPA's partnership with states and tribes
by helping them implement wetland monitoring and assessment programs.
Green infrastructure helps restore natural hydrologic systems and the health of aquatic ecosystems
reducing pollution from storm water events. In FY 2016, EPA released the document Tools.
Strategies, and Lessons I ,earned from EPA Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Projects that
summarizes green infrastructure solutions to reduce stress on the nation's water infrastructure and
to create more livable communities through stormwater management. Green Infrastructure
captures storm water to prevent flooding and losses (estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars)
and enhances filtration before pollutants enter waterways. In FY 2016, EPA's Green Infrastructure
efforts assisted 74 communities, advancing resilience in the nation's water infrastructure (FY
2016-2017 APG)
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 21
Not Met: 9
Data Unavailable: 2
Total Measures: 32
EPA made good progress toward three of four objectives—Sustainable and Livable Communities;
Preserve Land; and Restore Land. EPA continued to protect human health and the environment
from uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances that could contaminate our land and rivers and
threaten healthy ecosystems. EPA focused on preventing and reducing exposure to contaminants,
assessing and cleaning up contaminated sites and facilitating their reuse, and strengthening our
preparedness and emergency response programs. However, the agency continued to face
challenges under Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country,
designated as Focus Area for Improvement.
Objective 3.1: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities
EPA's Brownfields Program continued to achieve strong results. In FY 2016, federal brownfields
funding made 7,354 acres ready for reuse, leveraged 9,661 jobs, and raised $1.47 billion from
public and private sources, exceeding performance targets driving further economic activity. In a
peer-reviewed study, residential property values increased 5 to 15 percent after brownfields grant
cleanups. Analyzing this data, EPA estimates that local governments near 48 brownfield sites
would see a total of $29-97 million in additional taxes in a single year after cleanup (2 to 7 times
the $12.4 million EPA contribution).
EPA missed the Risk Management Plan (RMP) inspection target for the second straight year, but
the agency continued to make progress protecting workers and communities by prioritizing the
highest risk facilities (based on accident history, quantity of chemicals on site, or proximity to
large residential populations) and implementing Executive Order 13650 on Improving Chemical
Facility Safety and Security. In FY 2016, EPA proposed revisions to the RMP rule to improve
chemical process safety and protect communities and first responders.
543
-------
Objective 3.2: Preserve Land
EPA's waste reduction and waste management programs continued to make progress. In FY 2014
(most recent data), the reuse or recycling of more than 9 million tons of materials and products
offset the use of virgin resources through the Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) program.
As part of the SMM program, EPA promoted three national strategies: the Federal Green
Challenge, Electronics Challenge, and Food Recovery Challenge. These strategies focused on
using less environmentally intensive and toxic materials and employing downstream solutions to
conserve resources for future generations. EPA co-hosted the first Food Recovery Summit
resulting in a framework for wide-scale and sustained reductions in food loss and waste.
Participants in the Food Recovery Challenge diverted more than 120 tons of food from landfills,
and federal facilities participating through the SMM Federal Green Challenge implemented
multiple efforts to reduce waste and electricity usage, saving taxpayers over $21 million.
The number of underground storage tank (UST) facilities in significant operational compliance
with leak detection and prevention requirements in FY 2016 increased to 72.5 percent, and the
number of UST releases has decreased 10.25 percent over the past 7 years. To continue protecting
communities' health and safety, EPA collaborated with states to update state UST regulations
consistent with revised federal regulations. The agency also worked with partners to strengthen
the tribal notification procedures and provided training to tribes on the incident management
system and responses to railroad accidents to improve preparedness and communications. Despite
this progress, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) cleanup, and UST prevention programs face difficult
implementation issues. Emerging contaminants can be difficult to characterize, and may affect
states' and tribes' ability to carry out authorized permitting, cleanup, and compliance programs.
Objective 3.3: Restore Land
With 53 percent of the U.S. population, or 166 million people, living within three miles of a
contaminated or potentially contaminated site, assessing and cleaning up sites is a significant
achievement for public health. Cleanup programs continued to make progress by reducing the
backlog of contaminated sites awaiting assessment, increasing the number of RCRA corrective
action sites with human exposure under control, addressing the issue of vapor intrusion at
contaminated waste and UST sites, and making an additional 9,640 sites Ready for Anticipated
Use in FY 2016 (FY 2016-2017 APG). Evidence from high-profile UST sites demonstrates that
cleanups increase property values by 4 to 9 percent, while a study of 458 Superfund sites found
more than 3,900 businesses generating a total of $29 billion in annual sales in one year.
Despite this progress, the pace of cleanups has slowed in recent years as cleanups become more
challenging and complex. The Superfund and RCRA corrective action program missed cleanup
targets due to increased complexity of remaining sites, new science regarding emerging and
existing contaminants (e.g., perfluorinated compounds), and changing screening/toxicity values.
544
-------
Objective 3.4: Strengthen Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
In FY 2016 EPA highlighted this objective as a focus area for improvement for the third
consecutive year. External challenges include tribal diversity (population, culture, geography,
economic development, expertise, income, priorities), unique legal and policy issues, and the need
for improved EPA tribal data and its management. Most tribes are not seeking authority to
implement federal regulatory environmental programs, but more tribes are taking on monitoring
opportunities. Difficult environmental and health challenges remain in the more than 56 million
acres of Indian country, including lack of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, adequate waste
facilities, and other environmental safeguards which are elsewhere taken for granted. Internally,
EPA also faces competing demands and priorities.
To address these challenges, EPA developed a multi-year, agency-wide strategy primarily focused
on a comprehensive needs assessment to examine EPA direct implementation (DI) of programs to
protect human health and the environment in Indian country. EPA envisions that this effort will
take time, due to the complexities involved in completing the assessments and the competing
priorities and resource constraints of the headquarters and regional staff involved agency-wide.
Agency senior leaders continue to give attention and visibility to this issue so that it remains a
priority. In FY 2016, EPA completed Direct Implementation of Federal Environmental Programs
in Indian Country, a framework for EPA's DI work, and finalized a nationally consistent
methodology for assessing its DI responsibilities and activities on a program-by-program basis.
The agency will complete the first DI program assessment, for the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) program,
in FY 2017. EPA will evaluate and review these assessments to determine future actions to increase
efficiency and effectiveness of DI programs and address gaps to ensure that environmental
regulatory programs are as effective in Indian country as they are outside of Indian country.
EPA has also worked on two complementary efforts. First, EPA has made progress toward
standardizing tribal data by using a tribal identifier code across its data systems to identify
regulated facilities in Indian country. In FY 2015, EPA established a methodology to extract data
on the universe of regulated entities in Indian country and completed improvements to the "EPA
Tribal Areas" layer on the EPA Geoplatform by incorporating 2014 Census data. By FY 2016,
EPA had updated its tribal identifier data standard with the Bureau of Indian Affairs list of federally
recognized tribes to allow correlation of tribal data across multiple EPA data systems (e.g.
Envirofacts, TRI Explorer, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Underground
Injection Control database, and Cleanups in My Community). EPA also worked with individual
system owners to improve tribal data in EPA data systems (e.g., Integrated Grants Management
System (IGMS), Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), Resource Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) and Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)).
Second, EPA has provided Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) grants to tribes to build
tribal capacity. In FY 2014, EPA implemented revised GAP Guidance and developed EPA-Tribal
Environmental Plans (ETEPs) to align tribal and EPA priorities through joint planning with the
545
-------
first 39 tribes. By the end of FY 2016, EPA had completed ETEPs with 62 percent of eligible
tribes.
Goal 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 12
Not Met: 6
Data Unavailable: 10
Total Measures: 28
EPA had mixed results under the Ensure Chemical Safety objective and made good progress
under the Promote Pollution Prevention objective.
Objective 4.1: Ensure Chemical Safety
In FY 2016, EPA kept pace with expectations in most areas while addressing such significant new
challenges as helping to prevent spread of the Zika virus and responding to the enactment of Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, the first major environmental legislation in 20 years. EPA
missed its GPRA target for the number of existing chemicals for which risk assessments are
finalized, as well as the target for the related APG indicator goal, but is on track for new chemicals,
pesticides and endocrine disruptor screening targets (FY 2016-2017 APG).
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law in June
2016. The new law, which amends TSCA, will strengthen EPA's ability to ensure the safety of
chemicals in or entering the marketplace. The agency developed an action plan for implementing
the law's requirements and completed or made substantial progress on planned first-year steps.
Proposed rules under TSCA Section 6 have been completed to address risks identified in three of
the five risk assessments completed prior to passage of the new law. The new law will reduce
challenges the agency has faced in obtaining chemical testing data, assessing chemicals, meeting
the thresholds for commencing risk reduction actions and addressing unwarranted confidentiality
claims.
EPA made significant progress to meet the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act
(PRIA) statutory deadline of completing registration review risk assessments and making decisions
by 2022 on all pesticides registered prior to October 1, 2007—exceeding the targets established
for FY 2016 in the number of dockets opened (the first step in the registration review process) and
final work plans completed. In FY 2016, EPA also acted to reduce spread of Zika using expert
technical assistance and communications support; mitigate endangered species risks through the
first-ever biological evaluations of three organophosphates; and advanced assessment of the effects
of pesticides on pollinators by completing the first comprehensive bee assessment of a
neonicotinoid insecticide, suspected of affecting bees.
EPA made faster-than-expected progress in reducing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) human blood
serum concentrations, exceeding its GPRA performance targets for FY 2012 and FY 2014, and
improved transparency by expanding its online ChemView portal and continuing the review of
new Confidential Business Information claims. The agency's progress on PFOA is attributable in
546
-------
part to the work it has accomplished with industry partners under the voluntary 2010/2015 PFOA
Stewardship Program. All eight major participating companies met the goals to which they
committed under this program.
EPA scientists launched a new interactive CompTox Dashboard in FY 2016 with information for
more than 700,000 chemicals. Available to the public, the dashboard is a gateway to an array of
related public domain databases, provides improved access to data and models associated with
chemicals of interest, and is a hub that links many EPA research databases. The user-friendly
interface provides access to chemical structure information and tens of thousands of
physicochemical properties and is used to develop machine-learning models that can make
improved predictions about chemical risks. The Dashboard brings EPA one step closer to a "one
stop shop" for environmental chemistry data to inform future exposure and risk assessments.
In FY 2016, EPA announced it would use estrogen-related data on thousands of chemicals
generated by the Toxicology in the 21st Century (Tox21) research collaboration to screen
chemicals for potential endocrine bioactivity. In addition, EPA focused on evaluating the
Androgen Receptor (AR) model and developing the steroidogenesis and thyroid pathways/models,
three other endocrine related biological areas of interest, to screen chemicals for potential
endocrine bioactivity. These methods rely on data gathered from cell samples and computer
models, replacing testing using animals.
In FY 2016, EPA's Office of Research and Development posted final assessments for
Trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) and Ammonia to EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database. These final assessments implement many of the recommendations provided by the
National Academy of Sciences and feature a new streamlined document structure that is more
transparent about the methods used and better articulates how decisions were made.
Objective 4.2: Promote Pollution Prevention
In FY 2016, the agency made progress in preventing pollution at the source. The most recent results
show performance targets were met for all six of the agency's pollution prevention (P2) measures
and in four of these cases were substantially exceeded. The agency nevertheless faced challenges,
including the tendency of many P2 grantees to report aggregated results without a breakout of
specific P2 practices and corresponding environmental and economic results. The program is
testing a proposed template for grantees to use to report specific P2 actions taken at the facility
level and any corresponding economic and environmental outcomes (with results expected in FY
2017).
547
-------
Goal 5: Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and
Assuring Compliance
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 9
Not Met: 6
Data Unavailable: 0
Total Measures: 15
Objective 5.1: Enforce Environmental Laws to Achieve Compliance
By focusing its efforts on larger, more complex, risk-based enforcement cases that drive
compliance across industries and have the highest impact on protecting public health and the
environment, EPA made strong progress under its enforcement objective in FY 2016. Although
total annual enforcement cases have decreased overall, in FY 2016, the agency obtained the largest
Clean Water Act penalty (Deepwater Horizon-BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill) in EPA's history, which
contributed to a record $5.8 billion in combined federal administrative and civil judicial penalties.
EPA also obtained $13.7 billion in administrative and civil judicial complying actions/injunctive
relief. In the case of environmental benefits, the agency reached a record RCRA enforcement
settlement with Mosaic Fertilizer LLC addressing violations at its phosphate chemical facilities in
two states for mismanagement of hazardous wastes. The settlement set a record 62 billion pounds
for the quantity of hazardous waste reduced, treated, or eliminated through a concluded
enforcement action.
EPA's criminal enforcement program also made strong progress in FY 2016, with a criminal
conviction rate of 94 percent. Significant cases often were tied to individual conduct, which
resulted in 92 years of incarceration, $192 million in restitution, and $13 million in fines to be paid
by individuals and corporations. Aside from this progress however a focus on higher-impact cases,
combined with normal year-to-year variability of the enforcement case settlement process, affected
some of the agency's FY 2016 enforcement program results, contributing to missed targets for the
number of federal inspections and evaluations, pounds of air and water pollutants reduced, and
volume of contaminated soil and groundwater media cleaned up.
EPA continued to promote environmental justice (EJ) by targeting noncomplying facilities for
their disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority communities. In FY 2016, one-third
of non-exempt civil cases initiated by EPA occurred in locations with potential EJ concerns. In
settlement agreements, the agency continued its efforts to include Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) which directly benefit communities in settlement agreements, contributing to SEPs
value remaining high in FY 2016 ($32M). Looking forward, further advancing the use of Next
Generation Compliance tools and strategies throughout the enforcement and compliance program,
including enforcement settlements, remains a priority. To date, over fifty enforcement settlements
have included tools and approaches consistent with Next Generation Compliance principles. In FY
2016, to promote further use of these tools and approaches, the agency issued Next Generation
Enforcement Settlement Highlights to identify where tools such as transparency, electronic
reporting and advanced monitoring are already being used to improve compliance and
environmental outcomes.
548
-------
Verificatiom/Validati Performance Data
The agency develops Data Quality Records (DQRs) to present validation/verification information
for selected performance measures and information systems, consistent with guidance from the
Office of Management and Budget. A DQR documents the management controls, responsibilities,
quality procedures, and other metadata associated with the data lifecycle for individual
performance measures, and is intended to enhance the transparency, objectivity, and usefulness of
the performance result. EPA's program offices choose the measures for which to develop DQRs,
consistent with the agency's goal to document quality procedures associated with a broad range of
budget measures. Each DQR can be considered current as of the most recent date for which the
agency has published results for the performance measure. All of EPA's current DQRs are
available in PDF format at the following URL: http://www.epa.gOv/planandbudeet/archive#dqr.
(If this link does not work, please copy and paste the URL directly into your browser.)
Please note the PDF file includes DQRs that reference supporting documents, which are available
upon request by sending an email with the name of the document and DQR to
OCFOINFO@epa.gov. The email should indicate the measure number and text associated with
the DQR, and the filename shown underneath the icon for the attachment.
549
-------
I. .SK
Mclija.bi.lit>- «f it; EPvVs Ptrfornncf Data
l>aU'i ir^etl '.u report pudiimoncc hiv ivlisok ;ifi-1 r- c^ni^k'U" a. p;':«ihk\ Bitc,u:w
impic^incnlN ii: ln:ir,j;i health anil ill*; uiviiMinri.- H >n ) in 1 c illi ncilkilvl.} u|jpan;:iL Lliuc
i!is»lii tv ic u\s heiw iicn the L', l-i«u \ it. v,c h.uv poruu^cd trend dnu in iIIlsIi;iil< pmnrcvt mor I'lii.* Wc rJsci ;eporl
ti!!;il pi-rlnr: iam:i" ivjulb IVI" previous llint Ivcmu' jv ;fihihk* :n I Y "Mil"
Adr.iin:> lialnr
li'I'l.' I,nx,vsyi.i..-,;v!.4 Aw. NW « M.ui. Ccijr. 1 I'll A ~ IJC iOif.H * I2E-2; ..iii I-. ' * Fa?,; C5W2) jCI-l 1.3'
I' Sccri1 l-k1; n'.i tV. pvr'rrti -iwri--- rr.-»|-«ii«l rtilv
-fi wr;.vlth
550
-------
Goal 1 at a Glance
ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate
change and protect and improve air quality.
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 15 Not Met: 0 Data Unavailable: 15
(Total Measures: 30)
IV 2016 oeiiptmiw'
_ Address n-Cima/te Change
and Improving Air Quality, $3.161466
~ Protecting Amerces Waters. 54.043 437
Q Clean ng Up Conwiunities and
Advancing Susta'rab e Deveopmeflt, S3.29C.177
_ Ensuring the Safety oP Chemicals
and Predentin- PotfutJDrt, 574QJ73
~ EnftimrgEnvTirnienta Laws. 5792.974
FY 201E Pcrfnrnunce Measures
-
12
1 SSI
> 1
7
Objective 3 i
Dojert'w 2
i Hal Mr
| Dr.1 Pa-d'rv
FY 2015 Performance Measures
Objective I C6jecfcwe 2 Objects* 3 Objective 4
Strategic Objective Overview
FY 2016 Obligations*
of Goal 1 Funds
Objective 1.1: Adikess Qsnate Change.
M nim ze the threats posed by dim ate change by reducing g-eenhouse gas
em ssons andtakirg actions that help to protect human health and help
communities and ecosystems aecome mane sustainable and resilient to the
e^cts of climate change.
$226,232
19.51S
Objective 1.2: Improve Air Quality.
Achieve and maintain health and welfare-based a r poll jtian standards and
reduce risk from tone air po: utants and indoor air contaminants.
$676,307
75.5^
Objective 1.3: Restore and Protect the Ozone Layer.
Restore and protect the earth's stratospneric ozone la-yer and protect the public
from harmful effects of ultraviolet -ad ation.
$1B.,201
1.63$
Objective 1.4: Minimize Exposure to Radiation.
Minimize releases of radioactive material and be orepared to minimize exposure
throjgh response and recovery a ctons shojld unavodable re-eases occur.
$40,505
S.5>%
Goal 1 Total
$1,161,266
im.cfa
"All figures in thousands
551
-------
FY 2016 EPA Programs and Activities Contributing to Goal 1
Acid Rain Program
Air Toxics
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Clean Air Research
Climate Partnership Programs
Indoor Air Quality and Radon Programs
Mobile Sources
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Development and Implementation
New Source Performance Standards
New Source Review
Radiation Protection and Emergency Response Programs
Regional Haze
Stratospheric Ozone Layer Protection Program
552
-------
PERFORMANCE: STRATEGIC GOALS 1-5
(The shaded boxes indicate that actual results are not yet available, or that a measure has been discontinued.)
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate change, and protect and improve air quality
Objective 1 - Address Climate Change: Minimize the threats posed by climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking actions
that help to protect human health and help communities and ecosystems become more sustainable and resilient to the effects of climate change.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA made progress under this objective by developing greenhouse gas (GHG) programs to curb emissions and working with state and local
agencies to permit larger industrial sources of GHG emissions. In addition, EPA built upon its successful partnerships in the consumer products,
buildings, industry, homes, power, and transportation sectors. Performance highlights include:
• In FY 2014 (most recent data), EPA worked with the consumer products, building, industrial, homes, power, and transportation sectors to
avoid emissions of 971.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (C02) equivalents.
• EPA worked to implement activities and milestones supporting the GHG vehicle standards, including testing vehicles and issuing certificates
of vehicle conformity as outlined in EPA's 2016-2017 Agency Priority Goal. Automakers beat GHG emissions standards for the fourth
straight year and fuel economy reached its highest level ever recorded in FY 2015. (See: https://www.performance.gov/reduce-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-cars-and-trucks and https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomv/trends-report)
• EPA, along with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, finalized standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
• EPA collected comprehensive GHG data from over 8,000 of the largest facilities and suppliers in the U.S., accounting for about half of total
U.S. GHG emissions. EPA verifies and makes the data available to the public through EPA's GHG Reporting Program, providing data for
policy, business, and regulatory decisions.
Challenges and opportunities:
Overall, U.S. GHG emissions in FY 2015 were 11.5% below FY 2005 levels. This trend can be attributed to multiple factors, including year-to-
year changes in weather and other changes in the electric power sector (See: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-and-sinks). Through EPA-led efforts including the GHG Reporting Program, U.S. Climate Change Indicators Report, and Clean Air
Markets Program Data, EPA learned more about the sources, emissions, and impacts of GHGs. In October 2016, with U.S. leadership, 197
countries adopted an amendment to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer, committing to cutting the production and consumption of HFCs by more than 80% over the next 30 years.
553
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Address
Climate
Change
(PM G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC02E) of greenhouse gas reduc
tions in the buildings sector.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
156.9
168.7
182.6
196.2
188.0
201.1
210.4
MMTC02e
Actual
189.0
221.9
254.2
242.4
Data Avail
12/2017
Data Avail
12/2018
Explanation of Results: GHG emissions reductions from EPA's buildings sector programs continued to exceed programmatic targets. Methodologies to calculate
reduction actuals are refined annually to address the efforts of other government programs, third-party actors, and other program-specific market effects; therefore, results
could be higher or lower than a previous year.
(PM G06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC02E) of greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation
sector through EPA's SmartWay partnership program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
23.7
28.0
33.0
61
70
76
82
MMTC02e
Actual
27.9
38.9
51.6
61.7
72.8
84
Explanation of Results: Hie results show that in FY 2016, SmartWay helped avoid 11.2 million metric tons of C02 for a cumulative reduction of 84 MMTC02E since
program inception. The results reflect the efforts of partners to continuously improve the efficiency of their goods movement operations.
Additional Information: SmartWay's emissions reductions are estimated by comparing the emissions performance of trucks in SmartWay with modeled estimates of
national truck emissions, which is only one component of SmartWay. In 2004, there were 0.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions from the
SmartWay program. From 2004 to 2014, EPA projected forward from the 2004 baseline assuming no impact on GE1G emissions from U.S. climate change programs.
Beginning in 2014, heavy-duty vehicles subject to the Phase 1 Greenhouse Gas rule began to gradually penetrate the national fleet, raising the emissions performance of
the national fleet, and reducing the difference between the emissions performance of SmartWay truck carrier partners and the national fleet. Activities by SmartWay's rail,
barge, and shipper partners are not currently captured in these estimates.
(PM G16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTC02E) of greenhouse gas reduc
tions in the industry sector.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
346.2
372.9
421.9
461.8
540.3
676
702.7
MMTC02e
Actual
386.4
378.1
637.9
669.3
Data Avail
12/2017
Data Avail
12/2018
554
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: GHG emissions reductions from EPA's industrial sector programs continued to grow, exceeding programmatic targets. The FY 2014 actual
significantly exceeds the FY 2014 target due to greater GHG emissions reductions from the Landfill Rule, not reflected in the target that year.
Additional Information: Combined, energy, agriculture, waste, manufacturing and other industrial sectors generate more than a third of the nation's annual GHG
emissions. Industrial sector emissions are produced either from a process itself, from the energy consumed during the process, or to produce electricity. For example, the
transformation of raw materials from one "state" to another can result in the release of GHGs such as C02 and methane. EPA only reports results from those programs
that are active in the reporting year.
(PM G18) Percentage of Annual Greenhouse Gas Emission Reports verified by EPA before publication.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
93
95
95
95
95
Percent
Actual
96
98
97
97
Additional Information: The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, established in 2009, has 41 sectors that include more than 8,000 facilities and suppliers. Both facilities
and suppliers are required to report their data annually by March 31 st. After submission of the data, the agency conducts a verification review that lasts approximately 150
days and includes a combination of electronic checks, staff review, and follow-up with facilities to identify potential reporting errors and have them corrected before
publication. The 150-day period includes 60 days for EPA to review reports and identify potential data quality issues, 75 days for reporters to resolve these issues, and 15
days for EPA to review responses or resubmitted reports. EPA typically publishes the data by October 1st each year (see: www.epa.gov/ghgreporting).
(PM AD4) Cumulative number of state, tribal, and community partners that have integrated climate change data,
models, information, and other decision-support tools developed by EPA for climate change adaptation into their
planning processes.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
50
120
Number of
Partners
Actual
50
Explanation of Results: As of FY 2016, EPA's partners had integrated climate adaptation into planning processes with assistance from EPA's Climate Change Adaptation
Resource Center (ARC-X), Climate Ready Utilities Program, Climate Ready Estuaries Program, Brownfield program, and Stormwater Calculator with Climate
Assessment Tool.
(PM AD5) Cumulative number of stat
adaptation into the implementation of
(grants, loans, contracts, and technica
e, tribal, and
their enviroi
assistance a
community partners that have incorporated climate change
lmental programs supported by major EPA financial mechanisms
Sreements).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
50
100
Number of
Partners
Actual
50
555
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: As of FY 2016, EPA's partners had incorporated climate adaptation into environmental programs with assistance from EPA's discretionary
grants, the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds Programs (SRF), Brownfield clean-up grants, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(GLRI), the Tribal Grants Assistance Program (GAP), the Office of Environmental Justice (OE.T) Small Grants Program, and the Climate Ready Estuaries Program.
(PM AD6) Cumulative number of EPA-developed training programs that incorporate climate change adaptation
planning for EPA staff, state, tribal, and community partners (includes programmatic and cross-programmatic
trainings).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3
4
Number
Actual
5
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA completed the following training modules: (1) Introductory Climate Adaptation Training for EPA staff; (2) Office of Land and
Emergency Management Climate Change Adaptation Training for EPA staff; (3) Climate Adaptation Training for Local Governments; (4) Training on Understanding
Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources; and (5) Office of Land and Emergency Management Climate Change Adaptation Training for the public.
Objective 2 - Improve Air Quality: Achieve and maintain health- and welfare-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air
pollutants and indoor air contaminants.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
Under this objective EPA, together with its implementation partners, is making progress to improve air quality by designing, developing, and
implementing national programs that deliver significant reductions in harmful air pollutants. These actions include setting health-based ambient air
quality standards grounded in scientific research, and setting fuel and engine standards that improve air quality in communities across the U.S.
Performance highlights include:
• National ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants continued to show steady improvement. From FY 2003 to FY 2015 (most recent
data), for example, population-weighted ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone decreased 32 and 21%,
respectively. In addition, the number of days when the ozone standard was exceeded in Nonattainment Areas and the number of days when
the Air Quality Index is considered to be unhealthy for sensitive groups of people is trending downward. Cleaner air prevents tens of
thousands of premature deaths, reduces heart attacks and hospital visits, alleviates hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks among children
and sensitive populations, and prevents millions of lost school and work days. (See: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends)
• EPA's Acid Rain and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule programs continued to make significant progress in reducing emissions from
applicable sources. In FY 2015, U.S. power plants emitted 2.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide (S02), a 78% decrease from FY 2005 levels.
Similarly, annual nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in FY 2015 were 1.4 million tons, a 60% decrease from FY 2005 levels. (See:
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-markets-progress)
• EPA is making steady progress to fulfill its commitment to clear the existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) backlog as of October 1, 2013
556
-------
Objective 2 - Improve Air Quality: Achieve and maintain health- and welfare-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air
pollutants and indoor air contaminants.
and manage the timely review of all other SIPs consistent with Clean Air Act deadlines. Working closely with state and local air agencies,
EPA has reduced the overall number of active SIPs by 37% and the number of backlogged SIPs by 46%.
• EPA equipped health, housing, environmental and health insurance programs to effectively support delivery, infrastructure and sustainable
financing of environmental asthma interventions in homes and schools. The results reflect a combination of EPA supported technical
training and Non-Governmental Organization partnerships. (See: https://www.epa.gov/asthma)
Challenges and opportunities:
A constrained resource environment requires constant balancing of priorities to ensure progress on statutorily required work and court ordered
deadlines. Many state, local, and tribal air agencies are finding it more and more challenging to deliver environmental and public health protection.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Reduce
Criteria
Pollutants and
Regional Haze
(PM M9) Cumulative percentage reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
12
13
15
16
16
17
19
Percent
Reduction
Actual
16
13
15
18
21
Data Avail
12/2017
Explanation of Results: Hie FY 2015 results show national ozone concentrations have decreased at a rate consistent with the estimated impacts of existing and future
control strategies, continuing the trend of long-term improvement. The actual changes in this metric can vary from one year to the next because meteorology plays a
significant role in ozone formation.
Additional Information: This measure shows progress in reducing ambient ozone concentrations from the 2003 baseline (population-weighted national average of 0.090
ppm). Consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, it is based on a three-year average concentration. The measure assigns more
weight to counties with more people by weighting each county's ozone concentration by its population. The targets for this measure are based on predictions of future year
concentrations resulting from the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model which estimates the impact of existing and future control strategies. The actuals are updated
annually based on the actual monitored ozone concentrations.
(PM M92) (
2003, weigh
Cumulative percentage reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since
ted by population and AQI value.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
37
50
80
80
80
81
83
Percent
Reduction
Actual
73
73
74
79
82
Data Avail
12/2017
557
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: Hie FY 2015 results are largely driven by national ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations which have decreased at a rate consistent with the estimated
impacts of existing and future control strategies, continuing the trend of long-term improvement. The actual changes in this measure can vary from one year to the next
because meteorology plays a significant role in ozone and PM 2.5 formation.
Additional Information: This measure shows progress in reducing the number of "unhealthy" air quality days based on the Air Quality Index (AQI) relative to the 2003
baseline. The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the NAAQS for each of the five pollutants included in the
index. When AQI values are above 100, air quality is considered to be unhealthy for certain sensitive groups of people and then for everyone as AQI values get higher.
This measure assigns more weight to higher AQI values and counties with more people. Because ozone andPM2.5 typically account for the vast majority of AQI values
above 100, this measure largely tracks changes in those two pollutants. The targets for this measure are based on a regression curve using historical data. The actuals are
updated annually based on the actual monitored concentrations.
(PM MM9) Cumulative percentage reduction in the average number of days during the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted by population.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
29
45
50
50
50
68
70
Percent
Reduction
Actual
58
54
59
67
76
Data Avail
12/2017
Explanation of Results: The FY 2015 results show national ozone concentrations have decreased at a rate consistent with the estimated impacts of existing and future
control strategies, continuing the trend of long-term improvement. The actual changes in this measure can vary from one year to the next because meteorology plays a
significant role in ozone formation.
Additional Information: This measure shows progress in reducing the number of exceedance days in the 1997 ozone nonattainment areas relative to the 2003 baseline.
Consistent with the NAAQS for ozone, it is based on a three-year average. The measure assigns more weight to nonattainment areas with more people by weighting each
nonattainment area's exceedance count by its population. The targets for this measure are based on a regression curve using historical data. The actuals are updated
annually based on the actual monitored concentrations.
(PM N35) Limit the increase of Carbon Monoxide i
CO) emissions from mobi
e sources compared to a 2000 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1.86
2.02
2.19
2.36
2.53
2.70
2.87
Tons Emitted
Actual
1.86
2.02
2.19
2.36
2.53
2.70
Explanation of Results: This measure is an indicator of estimated reductions with alignment between target and actuals.
Additional Information: As of 2010, the few areas in the U.S. that had active issues with local levels of CO had controlled their levels to or below EPA's NAAQS for
CO. These areas have all been re-designated to attainment with a CAA maintenance plan (i.e., known as "maintenance areas"). In 2000, CO emissions from mobile
sources were 79.2 million tons using the 2000 Mobile6 inventory.
558
-------
(PM 033) Cumulative millions of tons of Volatile C
~rganic Compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1.88
2.05
2.23
2.4
2.57
2.74
2.91
Tons Reduced
Actual
1.88
2.05
2.23
2.4
2.57
2.74
Explanation of Results: This measure is an indicator of estimated reductions with alignment between target and actuals.
Additional Information: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the atmosphere to form ozone and particulate matter, both of which are criteria pollutants for which
EPA establishes NAAQS. In addition, some VOCs are air toxics (such as benzene) or react in the atmosphere to form ozone and particulate matter, both of which are
criteria pollutants for which EPA establishes NAAQS. Reducing VOC emissions from mobile sources reduces the atmospheric concentrations and resulting health and
environmental effects of these pollutants. EPA has reduced VOC emissions from mobile sources through its emissions standards promulgated since 2000 which apply to
mobile sources including on-road cars and trucks, nonroad engines and equipment (such as lawn and garden equipment), locomotives, and marine engines. VOC
emissions will continue to fall over time as new, cleaner vehicles and engines enter the fleet. In 2000, VOCs emissions from mobile sources were 7.7 million tons using
the 2000 Mobile6 inventory.
(PM 034) Cumulative millions of tons of Nitrogen
Dxides (NOx
reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3.73
4.07
4.41
4.74
5.08
5.42
5.76
Tons Reduced
Actual
3.73
4.07
4.41
4.74
5.08
5.42
Explanation of Results: This measure is an indicator of estimated reductions with alignment between target and actuals.
Additional Information: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the atmosphere to form ozone, particulate matter, and N02, all of which are criteria pollutants for which EPA
establishes NAAQS. Reducing NOx emissions from mobile sources reduces the atmospheric concentrations and resulting health and environmental effects of these
pollutants as well as the ecosystem effects associated with nitrogen deposition to water bodies. EPA has reduced NOx emissions from mobile sources through its
emissions standards promulgated since 2000, which apply to mobile sources including on-road cars and trucks, nonroad engines and equipment (such as construction,
fanning, and lawn and garden equipment), locomotives, aircraft, and marine vessels. NOx emissions will continue to fall over time as new, cleaner vehicles and engines
enter the fleet. In 2000, NOx emissions from mobile sources were 11.8 million tons using the 2000 Mobile6 inventory.
(PM M91) Cumulative p»
(PM-2.5) in all monitorec
;rcentage reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter
counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
15
16
20
28
29
31
32
Percent
Reduction
Actual
26
26
29
29
32
Data Avail
12/2017
559
-------
Explanation of Results: Hie FY 2015 results show national PM2.5 concentrations have decreased at a rate consistent with the estimated impacts of existing and future
control strategies, continuing the trend of long-term improvement. The actual changes in results can vary from one year to the next because meteorology plays a
significant role in PM 2.5 formation.
Additional Information: This measure shows progress in reducing ambient PM 2.5 concentrations with respect to the 2003 baseline (population-weighted national
average of 14.1 ug/m3). Consistent with the NAAQS for PM 2.5, it is based on a three-year average concentration. Reducing emissions of PM 2.5 results in decreases in
atmospheric concentrations of inlialable fine particles, which in turn lowers the risk of premature mortality, hospital admissions for heart and lung disease, and respiratory
symptoms. The measure assigns more weight to counties with more people by weighting each county's PM 2.5 concentration by its population. The targets for this
measure are based on predictions of future year concentrations resulting from the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model which estimates the impact of existing and
future control strategies. The actuals are updated annually based on the actual monitored concentrations.
(PM P34) Cumulative tons of PM-2.5 reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
136,677
146,921
159,164
171,407
183,651
195,895
208,138
Tons Reduced
Actual
136,677
146,921
159,164
171,407
183,651
195,895
Explanation of Results: This measure is an indicator of estimated reductions with alignment between target and actuals.
Additional Information: EPA has reduced PM 2.5 emissions from mobile sources through its emissions standards promulgated since 2000, which apply to mobile sources
including on-road cars and trucks, nonroad engines and equipment (such as construction and fanning equipment), locomotives, and marine vessels. PM 2.5 emissions will
continue to fall overtime as the new, cleaner vehicles and engines enter the fleet. In 2000, PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources were 510,550 tons using the 2000
Mobile6 inventory.
(PM A01) Annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (S021
i from electric power generation sources.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
Tons Emitted
Actual
4,544,000
3,319,000
3,210,365
3,122,921
2,231,970
Data Avail
12/2017
Explanation of Results: Actual emissions have consistently been lower than the targets due to a number of factors including use of the large and growing bank of acid
rain program allowances and uncertainty regarding market dynamics related to the mix of fuels and power generation sources in the future.
Additional Information: The baseline in 1980 is 17.4 million tons of S02 emissions from electric utility sources. This inventory was developed by the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and is used as the basis for reduction in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. Statutory S02 emissions
capped in 2010 at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level. Targets for this measure through 2010 were based on implementation of
the nationwide Acid Rain Program (ARP) alone whereas the (lower) target of 6 million tons for FY s 2011-2015 recognized implementation of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) Programs in eastern states in combination with ARP. The updated FY 2016 and 2017 targets are based on the ARP and newly established S02 budgets under
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which began implementation in January 2015. The FY 2016 and FY 2017 targets incorporate the following assumptions: 1)
CSAPR states emit at the full assurance provision level allowed under the rule; 2) sources in non-CSAPR states would continue to emit at historical levels; and 3) potential
use of banked ARP allowances.
560
-------
(PM MM6) Total number of backlogged SIPs remaining.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
300-400
100-200
Number of
Backlogged SIPs
Actual
699
649
557
322
Explanation of Results: At the end of FY 2016, EPA had 322 backlogged SIPs remaining to be acted on. In FY 2016, EPA took action on 466 SIPs; 235 of these actions
were on backlogged SIPs and 231 actions were on non-backlogged SIPs. The total number of active SIPs is trending down (37% decrease since 10/1/2013) and EPA is
receiving fewer incoming SIPs than in the past.
Additional Information: Hie CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of the country and a specific plan to attain the
standards for each area designated nonattainnient for a NAAQS. These plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), are developed by state and local air quality
management agencies and submitted to EPA for approval. SIPs vary in their complexity with more complex SIPs requiring more effort from EPA to act on them. Each
year EPA identifies the baseline of total active SIPs, current and backlogged, and considers a range of anticipated incoming SIPs for that year. EPA then estimates the total
number of SIP actions it will take in the upcoming year. The SIP baseline changes year to year depending on actions taken in the prior year. The estimated number of
actions will also vary year to year depending on the status of EPA rulemakings, state priorities for which SIPs they want acted on, and potential new SIPs or SIP revisions.
Targets are presented as a range to reflect this variability.
(PM MM7) Cumulative Percent of State Implementation Plans i
SIPs) removed from the historical backlog.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
0
20
40
60
84
Cumulative
Percentage
Removed
Actual
0
25
48
65
Explanation of Results: As of October 1, 2016, there are 247 SIPs remaining in the historical backlog. EPA expects that by the end of 2017, the historical backlog will be
reduced to approximately 111 historically backlogged SIPs. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA /Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and
the associated Regions and states are aware of the remaining backlogged SIPs.
Additional Information: A SIP is considered backlogged if it has not been acted on within 12 months from its completeness date. In a February 2014 joint
EPA/ECOS/NACAA commitment, EPA and states agreed to work toward eliminating, by the end of calendar year 2017, the backlog of SIPs that existed as of October 1,
2013. The baseline for the historical backlog is 699. Net cumulative progress against the baseline is measured for each fiscal year as of September 30th. EPA has revised
this measure to more clearly convey EPA's progress to clear the historical SIP backlog that existed at the start of EPA/ECOS/NACAA agreement. Accordingly, EPA has
tracked progress for this new measure since FY 2013.
(PM M94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
Percent
Actual
73
80
90
59
80
Data Avail
12/2017
561
-------
Explanation of Results: Hie FY 2015 target was met. Most of the completed permit applications involved activities that could be addressed within the one year
timeframe. Only the most complicated permits took longer than one year to issue. EPA revised the results for FY 2013 and FY 2014 to reflect more complete state
reporting.
Additional Information: New Source Review (NSR) requires stationary sources to obtain permits before they start construction. NSR permits are usually issued by state
or local air pollution control agencies; EPA issues permits in some cases (such as in Indian country). States that issue permits are not required by law to report all major
source permitting actions to an EPA administered database. EPA calculates the annual percentage based only on the states that choose to report and occasionally the state
reports lag by 12 months or more from the end of each reporting year. This measure shows progress against the CAA requirement that NSR prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permits are issued within one year of determination of complete application.
(PM M95) Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
88
88
88
88
Actual
84
86
91
91
88
Data Avail
12/2017
Percent
Explanation of Results: The FY 2015 target was met. Most significant revisions to Title V permits are less complex than newly issued permits because revisions address
only a subset of applicable requirements. Performance for this measure has historically been in the 80-90% range with only the most difficult of significant Title V permit
revisions taking longer than 18 months to issue.
Additional Information: Stationary Source operating permits issued under Title V of the CAA are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air
pollution sources after the source has begun to operate and must be renewed every five years. Title V permits are usually issued by state or local air pollution control
agencies; EPA issues the permit in some cases (such as in Indian country). Additionally, when a source (or facility) undergoes a major or "significant" revision to its
operations that affects emissions, a revision to the Title V operating permit must be sent to the permitting agency for review. This measures tracks timeliness of significant
permit revision issuance within 18 months.
(PM M96) Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months
of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
99
99
99
75
75
75
75
Actual
72
76
60
59
67
Data Avail
12/2017
Percent
Explanation of Results: EPA did not meet its FY 2015 target for this measure. The majority of Title V permits are issued by state air agencies and it is difficult to
estimate targets for state work. The variation in actual performance is partly attributable to the increasing complexity of permits.
Additional Information: Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air pollution sources after the source has begun to
operate. Usually, Title V permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies; EPA issues the permit in limited cases. Title V permits must be renewed every
five years. When a new source (or facility) begins operations and has the potential to emit air pollution beyond a certain threshold, a new Title V operating permit must be
sent to the permitting agency for review.
562
-------
(PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
36
37
42
42
42
41
41
Percent
Reduction
Actual
45
45
45
Data Avail
2017
Data Avail
2017
Data Avail
2017
Explanation of Results: EPA expects an increase in toxicity weighted (for cancer risk) emissions over the next few years based
industry growth, as well as better understanding of cancer risk for certain air pollutants.
on projected increases in population and
(2) Reduce Air
Additional Information: Hie toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with EPA's compendium of cancer
and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. The out-year
targets are based on expected emissions derived from the 2011 NEI inventory and adjusted for expected air toxic reductions from proposed or anticipated national air toxic
rules. Targets also incorporate population and industry growth estimates, which result in increased air toxic emissions over time. Further, targets are also adjusted based on
health benchmark changes resulting from updated science.
Toxics
(PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
59
59
59
59
58
57
57
Percent
Reduction
Actual
55
55
55
Data Avail
2017
Data Avail
2017
Data Avail
2017
Explanation of Results: Emissions estimates over the next few years reflect uncertainties in measuring acrolein emissions, the largest pollutant contributor to this
measure, as result of the latest scientific understanding and 2011 NATA.
Additional Information: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the NEI for air toxics along with EPA's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk
criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. The out-year targets are based on expected
emissions estimates derived from the 2011 NEI inventory and adjusted for expected air toxic reductions from proposed or anticipated national air toxic rules. Targets also
incorporate population and industry growth estimates, which result in increased air toxic emissions over time. Further, targets are also adjusted based on health benchmark
changes resulting from updated science.
(4) Reduce
Exposure to
Indoor Air
Pollutants
(PM R50) Percentage of existing homes with an operating radon mitigation system compared to the estimated number
of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
12.5
13.3
13.9
13.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
Percent
Actual
12.9
14.1
15
Data Not Avail
Data Not Avail
Data Not Avail
563
-------
Explanation of Results: At this time, EPA does not have complete data available for this measure due to an interruption in voluntary reporting by the radon fan
manufacturing industry.
Additional Information: In 2003, 6.9% of existing homes estimated to be at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level had an operating radon mitigation system. Radon causes
lung cancer, and is a significant threat to human health because it tends to collect in homes, sometimes at very high concentrations. As a result, radon is the largest source
of exposure to naturally occurring radiation.
(PM R51) Percentage of all new single-family homes (SFH) in high radon potential areas built with radon reducing
features.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
34.5
36.0
37.5
37.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
Percent
Actual
38.2
44.6
38.9
44.1
Data Not Avail
Data Not Avail
Explanation of Results: This measure shows that the percentage of homes being built in radon areas with radon-resistant features has been relatively steady and
consistently exceeded EPA projections. Hie results were achieved through progress by leading state programs (supported by State Indoor Radon Grants); increased action
on radon, through the National Radon Action Plan expanded from the Federal Radon Action Plan; and through an increased awareness and interest in healthy homes.
Additional Information: In 2003, 20.7% of all new single-family homes estimated to be in high radon potential areas were built with radon reducing features. Radon
causes lung cancer, and is a significant threat to human health because it tends to collect in homes, sometimes at very high concentrations. Radon is the largest source of
exposure to naturally occurring radiation.
(PM R19) Cumulative number of programs supporting the delivery, infrastructure, and sustainable financing of
environmental asthma interventions at home and school.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
300
600
Programs
Actual
563
Explanation of Results: The results show that in the first year of the program, capacity has been built within community-based programs to deliver environmental
interventions in homes and schools and likely reflects EPA's success in reaching early adopters. The results reflect a combination of EPA supported technical training
(e.g., webinars, stakeholder training events, etc.) and funded partnerships (focused on tribes, school-based health centers, health insurance plans, and states).
Additional Information: The FY 2015 baseline fortius new initiative is zero. Through this effort, EPA is equipping health, housing, environmental, and health insurance
programs to support delivery, infrastructure and sustainable financing of environmental asthma interventions at home and school. Environmental pollutants in homes can
cause and exacerbate asthma. Further evidence indicates that investment in home interventions will improve health outcomes and reduce and/or shift health care costs
from medical treatment to secondary prevention.
564
-------
Objective 3 - Restore and Protect the Ozone Layer: Restore and protect the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the
harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA made progress under this objective through domestic commitments and leadership in international efforts to restore and protect the ozone
layer. The natural layer of ozone in the stratosphere shields and protects the Earth's surface from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays, which
can lead to more cases of skin cancer, cataracts and other health problems. Stratospheric ozone depletion is the result of a complex set of
circumstances and chemistry which includes releases of various human-produced chemicals which can accelerate ozone destruction. All nations
recognized by the United Nations have ratified the Montreal Protocol and continue to phase out the production of chemicals that deplete the ozone
layer while transitioning to ozone-friendly alternatives.
In FY 2015, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) consumption (production and import) were well below levels required by the Montreal Protocol,
showing that the U.S. continues to outperform international commitments and is on track to meet future obligations. Under the Montreal Protocol
and the Clean Air Act, total U.S. HCFC production and consumption is capped, and will be completely phased out by 2030. The results are
achieved primarily through EPA rulemakings that establish limits on the amount of HCFCs that can be produced and imported in a given year.
Additionally, reviewing and listing alternatives for HCFCs under the Significant New Alternatives Policy program, as well as regulations
establishing refrigerant management, labeling, and other requirements, have supported this transition. Importantly, industry innovation in
developing new alternatives to meet the needs of consumers and industry sectors continue to be critical as the U.S. adopts and promotes these new
alternatives in the transition from ozone-depleting substances (OPS).
Challenges and opportunities:
Implementing an allocation plan that both supports a steady phase out of ODS and meets the needs of a diverse group of stakeholders is complex
and continues to pose challenges. As the amount of ODS produced declines, the demands for flexibility and specific, tailored solutions to unique
situations grow. EPA manages ongoing exemption programs to allow low-quantity continued production of ODS in areas of critical need, such as
developing annual, critical-use nominations for methyl bromide, and associated annual rulemakings to operationalize the exemption.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Reduce
Consumption
of Ozone-
Depleting
Substances
(PM SOI) Remaining US Consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that deplete the Earth's
protective ozone layer, measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
<3,811
<3,700
<3,700
<3,700
<1,520
<1,520
<1,520
ODP Tons
Actual
2,339
1,450
1,640
1,374
584
Data Avail
12/2017
565
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: FY 2015 results show that the U.S. continues to outperform international commitments under the Montreal Protocol, and is on track to meet
future obligations. The results are achieved primarily through EPA rulemakings that establish limits on the amount of HCFCs that can be produced and imported in a
given calendar year. Additionally, actions reviewing and listing alternatives for HCFCs under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), as well as regulations
establishing refrigerant management, labeling, and other requirements, have supported this transition. Additionally, industry innovation in developing new alternatives to
meet the needs of consumers and industry sectors continue to be critical as the U.S. adopts and promotes these new alternatives in the transition from ozone-depleting
substances.
Additional Information: The base of comparison for assessing progress is the domestic consumption cap of Class II HCFCs as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
Each ODS is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is, its ozone-depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set
at the sum of 2.8% of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989 (a total of 15,240
tons). Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
Objective 4 - Minimize Exposure to Radiation: Minimize releases of radioactive material and be prepared to minimize exposure through
response and recovery actions should unavoidable releases occur.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA made progress under this objective by maintaining a high level of readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery
operations. In addition, EPA's regulatory and non-regulatory activities supported our mission to protect human health and the environment by
minimizing unnecessary exposures to radiation, including operating and maintaining RadNet and developing protective rules and guidance
documents. Performance highlights include:
• EPA continued to demonstrate a high level of radiological emergency response readiness, scoring 95% in FY 2016 for the level of readiness.
• EPA reduced the time it takes (65 days in FY 2016) to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at Department of Energy (DOE)
waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
• EPA maintained a nationwide radiation monitoring system, which was demonstrated by recent improvements to RadNet. EPA increased the
number of air monitors installed from 124 to 135 and increased the average percentage of operational monitors from 80% in March 2011 to
over 92% (monitors are taken down and brought back up for maintenance and/or repair on a routine basis). EPA also piloted dose rate meters
on approximately 10% of the existing RadNet monitors. Improvements in data processing and review processes have reduced the time that
data are in the review process and are thus available for release during emergencies in less time.
Challenges and opportunities:
Maintaining scientific, technical, and policy expertise in the radiation field continues to be a challenge across the federal government and in
organizations requiring this specialized expertise. Unlike many other science, technology, and mathematics fields that are growing, health physics
is a unique field of expertise that was born in the Atomic Age in the 1940s. As that original workforce ages, the nation is experiencing a shortage
of professionals in the field of radiation protection, nuclear power, and radiobiology.
566
-------
Objective 4 - Minimize Exposure to Radiation: Minimize releases of radioactive material and be prepared to minimize exposure through
response and recovery actions should unavoidable releases occur.
Responding to radiation incidents is complex and requires coordination of assets across all levels of government. EPA has built working
relationships in the National Response Framework (NRF), which provides context for how the response community works together and how
response efforts relate to other parts of national preparedness. In FY 2016, EPA and federal partners began to build an international partnership
with the International Atomic Energy Agency's Analytical Laboratories for the Measurement of Environmental Radioactivity (ALMERA)
network.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Prepare for
Radiological
Emergencies
(PM R35) Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal radiological emergency
response and recovery operations.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
90
90
90
93
93
93
93
Percent
Actual
97
92
99
94
93
95
Explanation of Results: Hie Core National Approach to Response (NAR) process currently measures select aspects of EPA's radiological emergency response program
and shows a continued high radiological emergency response readiness within EPA.
Additional Information: The level of readiness is measured as the percentage of response team members and assets that meet scenario-based response criteria.
(PM R36) Average time before availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an
emergency.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
Days
Actual
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
Explanation of Results: Over time, improvements in data processing and review processes have reduced the time that data are in the review process and are thus available
for release in less time.
Additional Information: In 2005, the average time between collection and availability of data for release by EPA during emergency operations was 2.5 days.
567
-------
(PM R37) T
disposal of t
ime to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure safe
ransuranic radioactive waste at WIPP.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Days
Actual
64
73
64
66
67
65
Explanation of Results: EPA has consistently met its targets for this measure, ensuring the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste disposal
standards continue to protect human health and the environment.
568
-------
Goal 2 at a Glance
PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
Protect and restore waters to ensure that drinking water is safe and sustainabiy man-
aged. and that aquatic ecosystems sustoin fish, plants, wildlife, and other biota, as well
as economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 37 Not Met: 14 Data Unavailable: 4
(Total Measures: 55)
FT 201& C-DlijatiDri"
_ AddressH- Gimafte Change
s*>d Improving Air Quol'ty, Si. 161-2.66
¦ Protecting Apicriai's Waters, S4wP43l437
n Cleaning Up CorriTiunites ard
Advancing Sustainable Dewojmert. $3.290.177
_ Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
arvd Preventing FaHutibiv 5740.-573
~ EnfOrrirg: En v-omenta Laws, Ł792.97.3
Strategic Objective Overview
FY 201& Obligations*
S of Goal 2 Fundi
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health.
Achieve and maintain standards and guidelines protective of human health in
drinking water supplies, fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and aratecr ard
sustainabiy manage drinking water ^sources.
$1,244,273
ao.ra
Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems.
Protect, restore and sustain She quality o# rivers, lakes, streams., and wetands on
a watershed bass, ard sustainabiy rn ar age and protect coastal and ocean
resources ard ecosystems.
S2.79S.1S4
&9.2M
Goal 2 Total
H043,*?
lOEUH
•All figures in thousands
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
569
FY 201E Performance Meeswes
- ~ M«1
~ Mai Mr.
1 1 Cvla'irdrc
4
13
-
28
1
II 9 ¦
1
-------
FY 2016 EPA Programs and Activities Contributing to Goal 2
Beach Program
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Coastal and Ocean Programs
System
Chesapeake Bay
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Children's Health Protection
Other Geographic Programs (including Lake
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Pontchartrain and Northwest Forest),
Columbia River Estuary Partnership
Lake Champlain, San Francisco Bay Delta
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Estuary, South Florida
Drinking Water and Ground Water Protection
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Programs
Puget Sound
Drinking Water Research
Surface Water Protection Program
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Sustainable Infrastructure Program
Effluent Guidelines
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Fish Consumption Advisories
Underground Injection Control Program
Great Lakes
U.S.-Mexico Border
Gulf of Mexico
Wastewater Management
Human Health and Ecosystem Protection
WaterSense
Research
Water Monitoring
Human Health Risk Assessment
Water Quality Research
Long Island Sound
Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Mercury Research
Watershed Management
National Environmental Monitoring Initiative
Wetlands Marine Pollution
National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
570
-------
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
Protect and restore waters to ensure that drinking water is safe and sustainably managed, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants, wildlife,
and other biota, as well as economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.
Objective 1 - Protect Human Health: Achieve and maintain standards and guidelines protective of human health in drinking water supplies, fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and protect and sustainably manage drinking water resources.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA is progressing as planned in protecting human health by preserving the safety of our nation's drinking water and increasing protections for
recreational waters to enable safe waters for swimming. In FY 2016, 90.4 percent of our population served by community water systems received
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards. Strategies for improved compliance include targeted enforcement,
technical and managerial support, and infrastructure investments. Building on the June 2015 cyanotoxin drinking water health advisories and
support document for states and utilities, EPA released the legislatively-mandated Algal Toxin Risk Assessment and Management Strategic Plan
for Drinking Water in November 2015. The strategic plan, developed considering public comment from states, utilities, and federal partners,
outlined steps to fill information gaps, improve communication and implementation tools, and facilitate sound decision making at the state and
federal level. Meeting needs identified in the plan, EPA later released several tools, including a state-requested cyanotoxin risk communication
toolbox and cyanotoxin risk management example plans and template.
EPA continues to encourage states to adopt its 2012 recreational water quality criteria recommendations, which are designed to protect people
from harmful levels of fecal pathogens while swimming or participating in other similar activities in waters. EPA sponsored the 2016 Recreational
Waters Conference to discuss issues related to human health in waters used for recreation, and made grant funds for monitoring coastal beaches
contingent upon states providing schedules to adopt the 2012 recreational criteria. EPA has also issued draft recreational water quality criteria
and/or swimming advisories for the cvanotoxins microcvstin and cylindrospermopsin that may result from harmful algal blooms.
Challenges and opportunities:
While America's drinking water remains among the safest in the world, emerging challenges to maintain its safety are still present - challenges
that, if left unaddressed, can pose serious risks to public health and local economies. These challenges include: aging infrastructure, limited
funding and management capacity, degradation of drinking water sources from multiple factors (some out of EPA's control), risks from
unregulated contaminants, and threats associated with drought and severe weather events affecting source water availability and quality.
Despite these challenges, EPA's work with federal, tribal, state, and local governments and utilities nationwide continues to minimize any health-
based violations, while building appropriate technical, managerial, and financial system capability. EPA is focused on new approaches to
information management and communications through the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal that enables drinking water utilities and
laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies leading to more timely and higher-quality monitoring data. Also, promoting
partnerships crossing government, utilities and civil society, and lessons learned in over 40 years of implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) bring opportunities to re-energize the safe drinking water enterprise advancing human health protection - this is the main objective of the
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
571
-------
Objective 1 - Protect Human Health: Achieve and maintain standards and guidelines protective of human health in drinking water supplies, fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and protect and sustainably manage drinking water resources.
Drinking Water Action Plan (PDF) released by EPA in November 2016. The proposed actions from this plan will modernize technology and
infrastructure, provide consumers with readily available information on drinking water quality, ensure robust and efficient oversight of drinking
water safety, prevent source water contamination before it happens, safeguard drinking water against extreme weather events, and promote equity
in access to safe drinking water and public health protections.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(PM aa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
Percent
Actual
93.2
94.7
92
93
91
91.2
Explanation of Results: Target was missed due to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (population of 4M) incurring a Ground Water Rule treatment
technique violation in January 2016 for inability to provide 4-log virus inactivation due to a chlorination system failed. Hie chlorination system was repaired the following
day. System has returned to compliance.
(1) Water Safe
to Drink
Additional Information: In FY 2005, 89 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water
standards.
(PM ape) Fund utilization rate for the
DWSRF.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
Percent
Actual
90
90
91
92
94
95
Explanation of Results: The utilization rate has consistently increased over the last few years. From FY 2014 - FY 2016 states signed a record amount of funds into new
loans. This resulted from EPA and state implementation of the FY 2014 Unliquidated Obligation (ULO) Strategy, which led many states to develop agile cash flow
models to more accurately balance fund inflows and outflows.
Additional Information: In FY 2005, the fund utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was 85 percent.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
572
-------
(PM aph) P<
years for ou
treatment oi
jrcent of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years (five
tstanding performance or those ground water systems approved by the primacy agency to provide 4-log
'viruses).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
95
95
95
83
79
79
85
Percent
Actual
92
89
93
87
90.8
91.2
Additional Information: In FY 2007, 92 percent of community water systems had undergone a sanitary survey. Prior to FY 2007, this measure tracked states rather than
community water systems in compliance with this regulation. Starting in FY 2014, this measure includes ground water systems in addition to surface water systems.
Ground water systems that have been approved by the primacy agency to provide 4-log treatment of viruses or have outstanding performance based on prior sanitary
surveys may have sanitary surveys conducted no less than every five years (per 40 CFR 142.16(o)(2)(iii)). Because the universe is larger, the targets starting in FY 2014
have been adjusted accordingly.
(PM apm) P
including ef
ercent of community water systems tha
'ective treatment and source water proi
it meets all applicable health-based standards through approaches
tection.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Percent
Actual
90.7
91
91
91
90
90.4
Additional Information: In FY 2005, 89 percent of community water systems met all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
(PM aps) Percent of Classes I, II and III salt solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days, thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
90
85
85
85
85
85
Percent
Actual
85
89
89
88
86
Additional Information: There is no fixed point that can be used as a baseline for this measure, since the activity that we are monitoring - "Mechanical Integrity Loss" -
has not yet occurred. The universe of wells losing mechanical integrity is not static.
(PM apt) Ni
[approxima
imber of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells
tely 23,640 in FY 20101 that are closed or permitted
(MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools (LCC)
cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
20,840
25,225
25,225
25,225
27,783
28,390
Wells
Actual
25,225
26,027
26,560
27,383
28,187
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
573
-------
Additional Information: FY 2012 was the first year of reporting for the measure. EPA is finding fewer and fewer wells suitable for closure or that have not already been
permitted.
(PM dw2) Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based standards.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
Percent
Actual
97.4
97.8
96.9
97
96
96
Additional Information: In FY 2005, community water systems provided drinking water that met all applicable health-based drinking water standards during 95 percent
of "person months."
(PM pil) Percent of popi
meets all applicable healf
ilation in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories (served by community water systems) that
h-based drinking water standards, measured on a four-quarter rolling average basis.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
75
80
82
80
80
80
80
Percent
Actual
87
80
81
98
97.7
82.1
Additional Information: In FY 2005, 95 percent of the population in American Samoa, 10 percent in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMt) and 80
percent in Guam were served by CWSs that received drinking water that met all applicable health-based standards.
(PM E) Percent of the population in Indian Countr
that meets all applicable health-based drinking wat
y served by community water systems that receive drinking water
er standards.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
Percent
Actual
81.2
84
77
89
88
88
Additional Information: In FY 2005, 86 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water
standards.
(2) Fish and
Shellfish Safe
to Eat
(PM fsl) Percent of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
4.9
No Target
Established
4.9
No Target
Established
2.3
No Target
Established
Percent
Actual
Biennial
2.8
Biennial
2.1
Biennial
3.3
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
574
-------
Explanation of Results: Although the number went up, there are no statistical differences between this year's percentage and previous years' percentages that we have
reported.
Additional Information: In 1999-2000, 7.8 percent of women of childbearing age had blood mercury levels above the level of concern.
Objective 2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect, restore, and sustain the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and
wetlands on a watershed basis, and sustainably manage and protect coastal and ocean resources and ecosystems.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
In FY 2016, the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center made significant progress promoting innovative finance solutions for the
nation's aging water and sewer infrastructure. The Center provided direct financial planning technical assistance to 10 communities across the
country and identified innovative Customer Assistance Programs (PDF) created by utilities to help low and fixed income customers having
difficulty paying their water and sewer bills. The Water Finance Center also connected leaders from federal, state, local governments, and
nongovernmental organizations to share best practices in coordinating funding and showcasing leading-edge local financing solutions.
EPA and state managers continue to prioritize waterbodies listed as not attaining water quality standards. The efforts from EPA and states to
restore these impaired waters have resulted in 4,009 waterbodies fully meeting water quality standards as of FY 2016. Additionally, EPA
published regulatory procedures for eligible tribes to obtain authority to identify impaired waters on their reservations and to establish Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). which serve as plans for attaining and maintaining applicable water quality standards.
Of all the water bodies across the nation that have been assessed and a possible source of impairment has been identified, 85 percent of rivers and
streams and 80 percent of lakes and reservoirs are polluted by nonpoint sources. EPA provided Section 319 grants to states and tribes to curb
nutrient pollution. EPA advanced reductions of nutrient pollution through partnerships with the animal agriculture industry including the Nutrient
Recycling Challenge that, in FY 2016, continued accelerating the development of nutrient recovery technologies to reduce discharges into waters.
During FY 2016, other EPA partnerships with the animal agriculture industry awarded best practices, and funded a series of U.S. Poultry and Egg
videos on water quality protection. Also, animal agriculture education modules on conservation measures were prepared through the EPA's
interagency agreement with the National Resource Conservation Service. Moreover, EPA provided state and tribal Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) programs with technical assistance to develop specific elements in their CAFO program to improve manure management.
Wetlands are important components of healthy ecosystems and contribute to the protection and restoration of water quality. In May 2016, EPA
released the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) 2011: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Wetlands that is the first national
evaluation of the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands. The Survey is designed to answer basic questions about the extent to which our
nation's wetlands support healthy ecological conditions and the prevalence of key stressors at the national and regional scale.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
575
-------
Objective 2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect, restore, and sustain the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and
wetlands on a watershed basis, and sustainably manage and protect coastal and ocean resources and ecosystems.
Green infrastructure helps restore natural hydrologic systems and the health of aquatic ecosystems reducing pollution from stormwater events. In
FY 2016, EPA released the document Tools. Strategies, and Lessons Learned from EPA Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Projects that
summarizes green infrastructure solutions to reduce stress on the nation's water infrastructure and to create more livable communities through
stormwater management. Also, EPA supported the annual competition Campus RainWorks Challenge, which aims to introduce the next
generation of planners and engineers to green infrastructure and continues to promote an interdisciplinary approach to stormwater management.
The EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program provides tools to protect watersheds and ecosystems. EPA
published the guidance Best Practices for NPDES Permit Writers and Pretreatment Coordinators to Address Toxic and Hazardous Chemical
Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) (PDF) with recommendations on handling toxic and hazardous chemicals that may
affect the integrity of POTW infrastructure as well as the quality of POTW's effluent and biosolids. Also, EPA launched the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Training to educate permit writers and permit holders about the WET
permit program's relevant regulations, technical concepts, permitting applications and enforcement activities. Additionally, the U.S. Geological
Survey, jointly with EPA, tested the beta version of the Surface Water Toolbox with states and EPA regional permit writers during fall 2016. The
Surface Water Toolbox is an application that provides data and methods to estimate critical stream statistics used in low flow analysis and
development of water quality standards. Low flow events typically aggravate the effects of water pollution due to the scarcity of water available to
dilute effluent loadings from point and nonpoint sources, resulting in higher in-stream concentration of pollutants.
Challenges and opportunities:
The country's water infrastructure is aging and EPA's needs surveys estimate that approximately $660 billion in total investment will be needed
over the next twenty years. Each year our country experiences about 240,000 water main breaks, and billions of gallons of raw sewage are
discharged into local surface waters from sewer overflows compromising water quality. Many of these problems could be prevented by upgrading
and repairing our aging infrastructure. EPA is helping to address these issues with the State Revolving Funds (SRFs), Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (WIFIA), Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center (WIRFC) and other assistance efforts, and collaborations with
water utility associations to promote Effective Utility Management, which is critical for all utilities to ensure their long-term sustainabilitv.
The proliferation of impervious surfaces increases polluted stormwater runoff that carries nonpoint source pollutants into local water bodies. EPA
promotes green infrastructure to water utilities and the communities they serve through science and topic-specific public outreach to keep them
strong, safe, and sustainable. By using green infrastructure to slow down and soak in stormwater where it falls communities can prevent polluted
runoff from reaching waterways. In addition, they can realize multiple benefits such as recharging groundwater, reducing stress on potable water
resources through rainwater harvesting, and reducing combined sewer overflows.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
576
-------
Objective 2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect, restore, and sustain the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and
wetlands on a watershed basis, and sustainably manage and protect coastal and ocean resources and ecosystems.
An overwhelming majority of Americans - 215 million (>70%) - live within 2 miles of a polluted lake, river, stream or coastal area. Moreover,
the rate at which new waters are listed for water quality impairments exceeds the pace at which restored waters are removed from the list, due to
challenges in protecting and restoring watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Further, EPA expects delays in restoration of impaired waterbodies due
to the complexity of some waterbodies. This complexity points toward the need for new approaches for assessing progress in water quality. EPA
is evaluating new approaches for measuring local improvements in water quality to provide consistent methodology for measuring progress, and
to more effectively track water quality outcomes from investments in protection and restoration.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(PM L) Number of water body segments identified by states in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality
standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3,073
3,324
3,727
3,829
4,016
4,082
4,089
Segments
Actual
3,119
3,527
3,679
3,866
3,944
4,009
(1) Improve
Water Quality
Explanation of Results: Hie target was missed due to: (1) Meeting standards in a single waterbody segment impaired by multiple pollutants is more difficult than if just
one or a few pollutants are impairing the single segment and (2) Many of the impairments which remain in waters identified in 2002 require many years before restoration
strategies accomplish full recovery of the waterbody segments.
on a
Watershed
Basis
Additional Information: In FY 2002, 39,798 water bodies were identified by states and tribes as not meeting water quality standards. Water bodies where mercury is
among multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this target when all pollutants but mercury attain standards but must be identified as still needing
restoration for mercury; In FY 2002, 1,703 impaired water bodies were impaired by multiple pollutants, including mercury, and 6,501 were impaired by mercury alone.
(PM bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
94.5
94.5
94.5
94.5
94.5
95
95
Percent
Actual
98
98
97
98
98
98
Additional Information: In FY 2002, the fund utilization rate was 91 percent. It is calculated using data collected annually from all 51 state Clean Water SRF programs
(50 states and Puerto Rico).
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
577
-------
(PM bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to water bodies
(Section 319 funded projects only).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Pounds (Million)
Actual
4.8
4.4
3.5
2.7
2.1
Data Avail
2017
Explanation of Results: EPA collects this information in its Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) for Section 319-funded on-the-ground implementation
projects that will reduce nitrogen-loads to waterbodies. States are not required to enter this information into GRTS until after one full year of project implementation, so
that field data can be collected to support the model calculations. The FY 2015 target was missed because state-selected nonpoint source projects vary dramatically in
their size and scale, the pollutants of focus, and the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that landowners are willing to adopt. In any given year this mix of projects,
pollutant of focus, and BMP type and location - while improving water quality at the local scale - could result in a national target being missed.
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 558,000 lbs. of phosphorus from nonpoint sources.
(PM bpg) Estimated annual reduction in million pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to water bodies (Section 319
funded projects only).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
8.5
8.5
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
Pounds (Million)
Actual
12.8
9
10.4
11.3
9.6
Data Avail
2017
Explanation of Results: EPA collects this information in its Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) for Section 319-funded on-the-ground implementation
projects that will reduce nitrogen-loads to waterbodies. States are not required to enter this information into GRTS until after one full year of project implementation, so
that field data can be collected to support the model calculations.
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 3.7 million lbs. of nitrogen from nonpoint sources.
(PM bph) E
319 funded
stimated ann
projects only
ual reduction in thousands of tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to water bodies (Section
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
700
700
1,100
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Tons (Thousand)
Actual
2,007
1,100
1,169
1,674
897
Data Avail
2017
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
578
-------
Explanation of Results: EPA collects this information in its Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) for Section 319-funded on-the-ground implementation
projects that will reduce sediment loads to waterbodies. States are not required to enter this information into GRTS until after one full year of project implementation, so
that field data can be collected to support the model calculations. The FY 2015 target was missed because state-selected nonpoint source projects vary dramatically in their
size and scale, the pollutants of focus, and the best management practices (BMP) that landowners are willing to adopt. In any given year this mix of projects, pollutant of
focus, and BMP type and location - while improving water quality at the local scale - could result in a national target being missed.
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 1.68 million tons of sediment from nonpoint sources.
(PM bpl) Percent of high
-priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
80
80
80
80
80
Percent
Actual
135
130
55
80
82
80
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states as environmentally or programmatically significant. The
annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of permits selected as priority, from which a subset will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2005, 104% of the
designated priority permits were issued in the fiscal year. Starting in FY 2013, results can no longer exceed 100% issuance due to an adjustment of the measure definition,
and the targets were revised accordingly. The universe used to calculate percentage results changed from the number of permits committed to issuance in the current fiscal
year to the total number of permits selected as priority.
(PM bpv) Percent of high-priority EPA and state >
PDES permii
ts (including
tribal) that are issued in the fiscal year.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
80
80
80
80
80
Percent
Actual
132
128
55
77
81
78
Explanation of Results: The Priority Permits target was missed due to delays in issuing final permits caused by various factors, including permit complexity and extensive
public comments received.
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states or EPA Regions as environmentally or programmatically
significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of permits selected as priority, from which a subset will be issued in the current fiscal year. In
2005, 104% of the designated priority permits were issued in the fiscal year. Starting in FY 2013, results can no longer exceed 100% issuance due to an adjustment of the
measure definition, and the targets were revised accordingly. The universe used to calculate percentage results changed from the number of permits committed to issuance
in the current fiscal year to the total number of permits selected as priority.
(PM bpw) Percent of states and territories that, within the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised water
quality criteria acceptable to the EPA that reflect new scientific information from the EPA or sources not considered in
previous standards.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
64.3
64.3
64.3
66.1
67.9
67.9
73.2
Percent
Actual
69.6
69.6
58.9
51.8
64.3
69.6
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
579
-------
Additional Information: In FY 2004, 70% of states and territories submitted acceptable water quality criteria reflecting new scientific information.
(PM bpx) Percent of areas associated with state-identified priority waters tha
TMDL or accepted plan or approach designed to achieve or maintain water q
t are addressed by an EPA-approved
uality standards.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
8
8
31
Percent
Actual
Data Not
Reported
9
Explanation of Results: EPA continued to implement the Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
Program (originally established in FY 2014). The Program saw a continued dialogue among states and territories, across Clean Water Act Programs, and among various
stakeholders about how best to prioritize plans for addressing impaired and healthy waters to demonstrate progress over time in achieving environmental results. Under the
new Vision, prioritization is a key component. To assist states in prioritizing impaired and healthy waters, EPA developed tools such as the Recovery Potential Screening
Tool and Waterscape. In addition, FY 2016 was a year to get comfortable with the Took and feel' of the new performance measure to track TMDLs, alternative restoration
and protection approaches. This performance measure was the first one to transition to using the Assessment and TMDL Tracking and Implementation System
(ATTAINS) database as the data source and the catchment area as the unit of measure to report results.
Additional Information: This is a new measure replacing the measures that tracked Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development. Cumulatively, EPA and states
completed more than 72,000 TMDLs through FY 2015. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants to a body of water in order to attain water quality standards.
The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself. The universe for the measure is all watershed areas corresponding to
priority waters identified by each state. The measure provides the extent of priority areas identified by each state that have been addressed by EPA-approved TMDLs or
alternative restoration approaches for impaired waters, or protection approaches for unimpaired waters, at the beginning of the year when the baseline is established.
(PM wq2) E
.emove the specific causes of water body impairment
identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
9,016
10,161
11,634
12,134
12,788
12,990
13,110
Causes
Actual
9,527
11,134
11,754
12,288
12,640
12,910
Explanation of Results: The target was missed because many of the impairments which remain in waters identified in 2002 require many years before restoration
strategies accomplish full recovery of the waterbody segments.
Additional Information: In FY 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states.
(PM uwl) N
umber of urban water projects initiated addressing water quality issues in the community.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3
10
30
22
49
25
Projects
Actual
46
9
65
28
48
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
580
-------
Explanation of Results: Hie initiated projects target is an estimate based on past awards. The actual awards made depends on a variety of factors including the quality of
proposed projects and, for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grants, the interest of the funding partners. We awarded one less grant in 2016 because we had less
money than expected available to fund the small grants program in 2016.
Additional Information: This measure tracks progress in grants that help communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and surrounding land. The
target of 49 projects initiated for FY 2016 included 29 projects under EPA's Urban Waters Small Grants (direct grants) and 20 projects under the Five-Star and Urban
Waters Restoration Program managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (sub-grants with EPA and leveraged public and private funds). Projects under both
programs advance water quality improvement and EPA investments are consistent with CWA Section 104(b)(3) authority.
(PM uw2) N
umber of urban water projects comple
ted addressing water quality issues in t
ie community (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
61
78
175
Projects
Actual
60
110
Explanation of Results: Results include completed Urban Waters Small Grants (54) and grants funded in part by EPA through the Five Star and Urban Waters
Restoration Program (56) managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Additional Information: Results include completed Urban Waters Small Grants and grants funded in part by EPA through the Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration
Program managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
(PM wq3) Ii
(cumulative
tiprove water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
208
312
370
408
446
484
519
Watersheds
Actual
271
332
376
411
450
485
Additional Information: In FY 2002, there were 0 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watershed of focus having 1 or more water bodies impaired. The
watershed boundaries for this measure are those established at the "12-digit" scale by the U.S. Geological Survey. Watersheds at this scale average 22 square miles in size.
"Improved" means that that one or more of the impairment causes identified in FY 2002 are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired water bodies or impaired
miles/acres, or there is significant watershed-wide improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more water quality parameters associated with
the impairments.
(PM Opb) Percent of serviceable rura
Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
92
93
93
93.5
92.5
93
93.5
Percent
Actual
92
91
91
94.4
94.6
93.5
Additional Information: In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
581
-------
(2) Improve
Coastal and
Ocean Waters
(PM sf3) At least seventy-five percent
National Marine Sanctuary will maint
clarity (Kd) levels at less than or equa
of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
ain Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than or equal to 0.35 ug 1-1 and light
to 0.20 m-1.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
Percent
Actual
85.4
CHLA: 70.9;
KD: 72.5
>75 (CHLA:
84.5; KD:
80.4)
CHLA = 86.0;
Kd = 87.2
CHLA = 82.0;
Kd = 77.3
CHLA = 70.9;
Kd = 78.5
Explanation of Results: Hie target for CHLA was not met due to a severe drought that occurred in South Florida in 2014 and continued throughout the summer of 2015
resulting in an extensive seagrass die-off in Florida Bay. Seagrass decomposition from the die-off contributed to anomalously high nutrient concentrations in Florida Bay.
Those nutrients released from decomposition of seagrass were conveyed to the Sanctuary and detected by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality
Protection Program long-term water quality monitoring program.
Additional Information: In 2005, total water quality was at CHLA < 0.2 ug/1, light attenuation < 0.13/meter.
(PM sf4) At least seventy-five percent of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary will maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to 0.75 uM and
total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to 0.25 uM.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
Percent
Actual
73.6
DIN: 81; TP:
89.5
<75 (DIN:
60.0; TP: 82.3)
DIN=72.6;
TP=87.6
DIN=61.7;
TP=78.3
DIN =70.8;
TP = 89.1
Explanation of Results: The target for DIN was not met due to a severe drought that occurred in South Florida in 2014 and continued throughout the summer of 2015
resulting in an extensive seagrass die-off in Florida Bay. Seagrass decomposition from the die-off contributed to anomalously high nutrient concentrations in Florida Bay.
Those nutrients released from decomposition of seagrass were conveyed to the Sanctuary and detected by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality
Protection Program long-term water quality monitoring program.
Additional Information: In FY 2005, DIN was <0.75 uM at 76.3 percent of monitored stations; TP was < 0.25 uM at 89.9 percent of monitored stations.
(PM sf6) The number of Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) with the annual total phosphorus (TP)
outflow less than or the same as the five-year annual average TP outflow, working towards the long-term goal of
meeting the 10 parts per billion annual geometric mean.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3
3
3
Stormwater
Treatment Areas
Actual
4
4
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
582
-------
Additional Information: This was a new measure for FY 2015. The baseline period is the most recent 5 years. Hie 5-year baseline takes into account variability due to
climatic conditions including extremely wet or dry years which are common in South Florida. For FY 2015, the 5-year baseline, 2010 to 2015, was 36 parts per billion
(ppb) for STA-1E, 35 ppb for STA-1W, 21 ppb for STA-2, 17 ppb for STA-3/4, and 54 ppb for STA-5/6. The universe is 5 STAs.
(PM co5) Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that will have achieved environmentally acceptable
conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
98
95
95
95
95
95
95
Percent
Actual
93
97
96
95
95
97
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, 71 sites had achieved environmentally acceptable conditions.
(PM 202) Acres protected or restored in National Estuary Program study areas.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
Acres
Actual
62,213
114,575
127,594
93,557
111,584
70,462
Explanation of Results: Factors contributing to the number of acres protected and restored each year by EPA and its partners are numerous and complex making it
difficult to accurately forecast with any degree of certainty. Some of the challenges that resulted in missing our target include: 1) coordinating work among multiple
entities at the Federal, state or local levels, 2) obtaining permits, 3) processing habitat restoration contracts, and 4) unanticipated weather events.
Additional Information: A total of 1,295,323 acres of habitat were protected or restored from FY 2002-2013.
(3) Increase
Wetlands
(PM 4E) In partnership i
year under the Clean Wa
for mitigation in CWA 4(
vith the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states, and tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands each
iter Act Section 404 regulatory program. ("No net loss" of wetlands is based on requirements
)4 permits and not the actual mitigation attained.)
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Acres
Actual
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Additional Information: EPA receives data for this measure from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
583
-------
(PM 4G) Nil
(cumulative
imber of acres restored and improved under the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great water body programs
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
150,000
170,000
190,000
220,000
230,000
290,000
305,000
Acres
Actual
154,000
180,000
207,000
221,000
275,555
291,055
Additional Information: This measure describes the wetland acres restored through only EPA programs. Information on the national status of wetland gains and losses
regardless of the cause is provided every five years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The most recent report (U.S. FWS, Status and Trends of Wetlands in
the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Status-And-Trends-2009/index.html) noted an annual net loss of 13,800 acres.
(4) Great
Lakes
(PM 625) Areas of Concern Beneficial Use Impairments removed (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
26
33
41
46
60
65
72
BUIs
Actual
26
33
41
52
60
65
Additional Information: Results from this measure are achieved through Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding as well as other non-GLRI federal and/or state
funding. Universe is 255. Reviews of this measure conducted during the preparation of GLRI Action Plan II in FY 2014 identified overstatements of the number of
beneficial use impairments removed. The cumulative results shown above are two less than were achieved through FY 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013. Corrected results are
shown from FY 2014 onward.
(PM 626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for delisting have
been implemented (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
l
3
4
5
8
9
ll
AOCs
Actual
2
2
3
7
7
8
Explanation of Results: Area of Concern (AOC) Management Actions were completed at the St. Clair River AOC. In addition, the program expects to complete
Management Actions at the River Raison AOC by the end of the calendar year 2016. The completed Management Actions in the River Raisin AOC were delayed due to
the complexity of the sediment cleanup.
Additional Information: Universe of 31. Results from this measure are achieved through GLRI funding as well as other non-GLRI federal and/or state funding.
(PM 628) Number of acres controlled by GLRI-funded projects (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1,500
15,500
34,000
38,000
94,500
110,000
120,000
Acres
Actual
13,045
31,474
35,924
84,500
101,392
115,889
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
584
-------
Additional Information: There were zero acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level in 2005.
(PM 629) Number of GLRI-funded Great Lakes rapid responses or exercises conducted.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
4
8
14
9
8
8
8
Responses/Exer
cises
Actual
8
15
7
8
21
11
Additional Information: There were zero multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual
response actions in 2005.
(PM 638) Projected phos
phorus reductions from GLRI-funded
jrojects in targeted watersheds (measured in pounds).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
130,000
310,000
525,000
Pounds
Actual
160,117
402,943
Additional Information: Cumulative measure of average annual projected reduction, starting in FY 2015.
(PM 639) Projected volume of untreated urban runoff captured or treated by GLRI-funded projects (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
30
70
120
Gallons
(millions)
Actual
37
116
Additional Information: Cumulative measure of average annual projected reduction, starting in FY 2015.
(PM 640) Number of miles of Great Lakes tributaries reopened
jy GLRI-funded projects
cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
2,200
4,200
4,900
Miles
Actual
3,855
4,615
Additional Information: As of October 1,2014, 3,475 miles of tributaries were reopened by GLRI-funded projects. Universe: N/A.
(PM 641) Number of mil<
funded projects (cumulaf
js of Great Lakes shoreline and riparian corridors protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-
ive).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
75
350
725
Miles
Actual
313
662
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
585
-------
Additional Information: As of October 1, 2014, there were 0 miles of shoreline and riparian corridors known to have been protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-
funded projects. Universe: N/A.
(PM 642) Ni
(cumulative
umber of acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-funded projects
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
7,000
15,000
30,000
Acres
Actual
7,033
17,540
Additional Information: As of October 1, 2014, there were 0 miles of wetlands known to have been protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-funded projects. Universe
is 260,000 acres.
(PM 643) Number of acr<
funded projects (cumulal
es of other habitats in the Great Lakes basin protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-
tive).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
127,000
167,000
187,000
Acres
Actual
146,815
167,218
Additional Information: As of October 1, 2013, there were 117,000 acres of other habitats protected, restored, and enhanced by GLRI-funded projects. Universe is
1,290,000 acres.
(5)
Chesapeake
Bay
(PM 234) Reduce per capita nitrogen loads (pounds per person per year) to levels necessary to achieve Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Load allocations.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
15.17
15
14.5
14
Pounds/Person/
Year
Actual
14.92
14.7
14.8
14.3
Explanation of Results: Meeting the annual target for this measure is dependent on meeting the targets for measure PM cb6. Note: measure deleted after FY 2016.
Additional Information: In FY 1986, the per caipta load was 27 pounds of nitrogen/person/year. This measure replaced PM 233 starting in FY 2013.
(PM cb6) Pc
as measurec
srcent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL allocations,
through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
l
15
22.5
30
37.5
45
52.5
Percent
Actual
8
21
25
27
21
31
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
586
-------
Explanation of Results: Failure to meet the FY 2016 target results primarily from a lack of new implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address
excess nitrogen loads, particularly BMPs reported from Pennsylvania's agriculture sector. About 55% of needed nitrogen load reductions among jurisdictions are from
Pennsylvania and that state's Watershed Implementation Plan calls for 71% of the state reductions to come from agriculture. To compound the problem, newly introduced
data from the Agricultural Census indicates more acres in commodity crops than expected. These crops use more fertilizers than was forecasted and the resultant increase
in nitrogen loads would need to be offset.
Additional Information: In FY 2010, 0 percent of the goal was achieved.
(PM cb7) Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as
measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
l
15
22.5
30
37.5
45
52.5
Percent
Actual
l
19
27
43
71
81
Additional Information: In FY 2010, 0 percent of the goal was achieved.
(PM cb8) Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment reduction actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as
measured through the phase 5.3 watershed model.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
l
15
22.5
30
37.5
45
52.5
Percent
Actual
ll
30
32
37
25
48
Additional Information: In FY 2010, 0 percent of the goal was achieved.
(PM xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect
a cumulative number of acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
(6) Gulf of
Target
30,000
30,600
30,600
30,600
30,800
30,800
31,426
Acres
Mexico
Actual
30,052
30,248
30,306
30,319
30,574
31,276
Explanation of Results: Habitat acreage restoration may take several years to be a success and the Gulf of Mexico Program counts acres once projects are in place and
results are recognized. Occasionally the program will have a high-yield project that has been active for several years, come to a close. This was the case for FY 2016.
Additional Information: In FY 2008, 25,215 acres were restored, enhanced, or protected in the Gulf of Mexico.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
587
-------
(PM xg3) In
the five Gul
lprove and/o
' States and t
r restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in watersheds throughout
le Mississippi River Basin.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
2
2
Watersheds (12
digit HUC)
Actual
2
Additional Information: New measure replaced PM xgl in FY 2016. The measure tracks improved and/or restored watershed annually. A 12 digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) watershed counts as having an improvement when there is a five percent or more positive change in at least one water quality parameter. Water quality
parameter(s) appropriate to the 12 digit HUC watershed include dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity, total suspended solids, salinity, chlorophyll, freshwater
inflow, oil/grease, floatables, nutrients, and invasive species.
(7) Long
Island Sound
(PM li5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island
Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE lbs/day.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
72
74
76
85
91.5
95
100
Percent
Actual
69
83
88
94
99.8
111
Additional Information: The 2000 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) baseline is 59,146 Trade-Equalized (TE) pounds/day. The ongoing TMDL target is 22,774 TE
pounds/day. The Long Island Sound Nitrogen TMDL is an enforceable document with a 15-year implementation timetable that completed in 2014. There are no annual
targets in the TMDL. The 'annual targets' in the strategic plan are for presentation purposes only and are estimates based on the 15 year total nitrogen reduction target.
New York City and Westchester County Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) are under Consent Orders that extended their TMDL compliance deadline to 2017. EPA
monitored these for compliance, as well as Connecticut STPs for anti-backsliding compliance with their final TMDL limits, or as renegotiated with EPA.
(PM li8) Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal habitat from the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
218
420
410
135
95.8
398
Acres
Actual
537
336
410
1,678
532
Explanation of Results: Partners completed more protection projects than were anticipated when targets were developed.
Additional Information: EPA revised this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA established annual targets with partners to
measure annual progress. Out-year estimates are based on continued state progress, feasibility, and funding for habitat restoration projects.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
588
-------
(PM li9) Reopen miles of river and stream corridor
miles by removal of dams and barriers or by instal
s to diadromous fish passage from the 2010 baseline of 17.7 river
ation of bypass structures.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
28
75
1.5
30
76.95
30
Miles
Actual
72.3
56
21.6
0
50
Explanation of Results: Segments of the Pawcatuck River project have been delayed, which would have opened up 70+ river miles.
Additional Information: EPA revised this measure in FY 2012 to report river miles instead of percent of goal achieved. EPA established annual targets with partners to
measure annual progress. Out-year estimates are based on continued state progress, feasibility, and funding for fish passage and bypass projects.
(8) Puget
Sound Basin
(PM psl) Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas
impacted by degrading or declining water quality (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
4,953
3,878
7,758
4,000
4,700
4,750
6,350
Acres
Actual
1,525
2,489
3,203
3,249
3,277
3,887
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, there were 1,089 acres that were upgraded to "approved" status in FY 2016 due to improvements to water quality. However, there
were 479 acres downgraded to "conditional" status due to recurrence of bacterial pollution predominantly from stormwater runoff contributing to missing our target.
Additional Information: Federal, state, local and tribal partners worked together to protect Puget Sound's approximately 143,000 acres of approved shellfish harvest beds,
and improve its approximately 10,000 acres of potentially recoverable shellfish beds, by ensuring that adjacent water quality and safe harvesting conditions were
preserved. The performance measure reports cumulative net gain in acres that are upgraded to approved status minus any loss of currently approved acres. In 2010, 4,453
acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas had improved water quality, resulting in the lifting of harvest restrictions. In 2011, approximately 4,000 acres in Samish
Bay were downgraded due to pollution exacerbated by La Nina weather conditions.
(PM ps3) Protect or restore acres or shoreline miles of aquatic habitats including: estuaries, floodplains, marine and
freshwater shorelines, riparian areas, stream habitats, and associated wetlands (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
12,363
19,063
31,818
33,818
43,006
45,500
48,000
Acres
Actual
14,629
23,818
30,128
41,006
43,002
45,360
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
589
-------
Explanation of Results: In 2016, EPA had 14 habitat projects from Puget Sound that we could not approve because they lacked quantification (i.e., spatial measurements)
of the area treated. These were a group of shoreline debris removal projects led by Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to gather and remove
accumulated anthropogenic debris or creosote treated pilings and dock materials. DNR has indicated they may be able to calculate these areas and re-submit the projects in
FY 2017.
Additional Information: Hie protection and restoration of habitat is one of the three priority areas for the Puget Sound Program. These activities supported salmon
recovery goals of viable, harvestable populations of this tribal treaty protected resource. In FY 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced
estuarine wetlands were restored. The target for this measure was exceeded every year from FY 2008 - FY 2012 resulting in the protection and/or restoration of 23,818
acres during that period.
(9) U.S.-
Mexico Border
Environmental
Health
(PM 4pg) L
area since 2
Dading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.-Mexico border
003 (cumulative).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
108.2
115
121.5
137.3
141.1
150.3
151.9
Million
Pounds/Year
Actual
108.5
119
128.3
131
142.9
151.8
Additional Information: As of FY 2003, zero pounds of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) had been removed.
(PM xb2) Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access
to safe drinking water in 2003.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
54,130
1,000
3,000
1,700
600
500
1,500
Homes
Actual
54,734
5,185
3,400
1,468
878
3,700
Additional Information: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to safe drinking water as a result of
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S.-Mexico border area lacking
access to safe drinking water in FY 2003 (98,515 homes). The known universe was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission
(CONAGUA) sources. This measure was modified from cumulative to annual beginning in FY 2012 to better capture annual program progress.
(PM xb3) Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S.-Mexico border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
461,125
10,500
27,000
39,500
40,750
40,720
450
Homes
Actual
513,041
31,092
25,695
12,756
44,070
45,000
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
590
-------
Additional Information: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to adequate wastewater sanitation as a
result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S.-Mexico border area
lacking access to adequate wastewater sanitation services in FY 2003 (690,723). The known universe of unconnected homes was calculated from U.S. Census and the
Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources. This measure was modified from cumulative to annual beginning in FY 2012 to better capture annual
program progress.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
591
-------
Goal 3 at a Glance
CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately
impacted low-income and minority communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances
and clean up and restore contaminated areos.
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 21 Not Met: 9 Data Unavailable: 2
(Total Measures: 32)
FY 2016 G-oliptiora'
_ AddnsangOrnate Change
and Impuv'ng Air Quality, $1.161.266
~ Protectorg America's Vrtte-s, $4,C4>4-37
OBaning Up Communities and
Advancing Sustainable Devesopmert, S3.29C.17?
_ Ensuring the Safety of Cherricals
a*>d Preventing PoCutfon, 5740,373
~ EnfPrrirgEnv Tifjnenta: Laws. $792.974
FY 2D1B Performance Measures
Dr. ¦ FWHiia
Directive 1 Dbjecnve 2 Objective 3 Qtyecbwe 4
Strategic Objective Overview
FY 2016 Obligations*
% of Goal 3 Funds
Objective 3.1: Promote Sustai nabJe and Livable Communities.
Support sustainable., resilient, and livable communities ay working with local,
state, tribal, and federal partners to promote smart growth, emergency
preparednes and recovery plan ning, redevelopment and reuse of contaminated
and formerly- contaminated sites, and the equitable distri bution of
environmental benefits.
$503,129
15.3*
Objective 3.2: Preserve Land.
Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste
generation and toxicity, promoting proper management of waste and petroleum
products, and increasing sustainable materials management.
Sl.065.W2
32.4*
Objective 3.3: Restore Land.
Preparc for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants
and clean up and restore poll uted sites for reuse.
$1,631,643
49.ffK
Objective 3.4: Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in
Indian Country.
Directly implement federal environmental programs in Indian Country and
support federal program delegation to tribes. Provide tribes with technical
assistance and support capacity development for the establishment and
implementation of sustainable environmental programs in Indian Country.
Ł89.413
2.7*
Goal 3 Total
$3,290,177
100.0*
'All figures in thousands
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
592
-------
FY 2016 EPA Programs and Activities Contributing to Goal 3
Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Environmental Response Laboratory Network
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Global Change Research
Homeland Security
Homeland Security Research
Human Health and Ecosystem Protection Research
Human Health Risk Assessment
Leaking USTs
National Environmental Monitoring Initiative
Oil Spill Prevention Preparedness and Response
RCRA Corrective Action
RCRA Waste Management
RCRA Waste Minimization and Recycling
Research Fellowships
Risk Management Program
Sector Grant Program
Smart Growth
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Superfund Emergency Preparedness
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund Enforcement
Superfund Remedial
Tribal Capacity-Building
Tribal General Assistance Program
UST Prevention and Compliance
U.S.-Mexico Border
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
593
-------
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately impacted low-income and minority communities. Prevent
releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas
Objective 1 - Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities.: Support sustainable, resilient, and livable communities by working with local,
state, tribal, and federal partners to promote smart growth, emergency preparedness and recovery planning, brownfield redevelopment, and the
equitable distribution of environmental benefits.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA continued to make progress under this objective. As of the end of FY 2016, brownfields federal funding had leveraged more than 115,600
jobs and raised $24.77 billion from both public and private sources, and these results have generally increased over time. Data from local
governments near 48 brownfield sites show that these entities collected an estimated total of $29-97 million in additional taxes in a single year
after cleanup (2-7 times the $12.4 million EPA contribution). EPA has made significant progress advancing the Executive Order on Improving
Chemical Facility Safety and Security (E.O. 13650) through its revisions to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule. These revisions will
strengthen data reporting requirements for chemical manufacturers and importers, protecting workers and communities by improving chemical
process safety, assisting local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improving public awareness of chemical
hazards at regulated sources.
Challenges and opportunities:
Challenges include meeting the demand for brownfields assistance, and making sure the funds from brownfields revolving loan funds are
available for additional projects. EPA inspects less than 4% of the universe of risk management facilities and expects this low inspection rate to
continue.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(2) Assess and
Clean Up
Brownfields
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,400
Properties
Actual
1,784
1,444
1,528
1,659
1,320
1,392
Explanation of Results: Target was missed due the difficulty of predicting results with exact certainty, as well as decreases in data entry from backlogged work packages
as compared with recent years.
(PM B32) Number of properties cleaned up using I
•rownfields funding.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
60
120
120
120
120
130
130
Properties
Actual
130
120
122
132
150
136
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
594
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Additional Information: This measure tracks the number of properties that have been cleaned up to a regulatory risk based standard using EPA Brownfields funding, as
reported by cooperative agreement recipients.
(PM B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
5,500
5,500
Acres
Actual
6,667
3,314
4,644
6,389
7,817
7,354
Explanation of Results: Acres made ready for reuse varies from year-to-year as there is no programmatic control over the size of any particular brownfield site. Acreage
levels fluctuate greatly from year to year, but loosely correlate with the number of anticipated cleanups and assessments.
Additional Information: This measure tracks the number of acres associated with properties benefiting from EPA Brownfields funding that have been assessed and
determined not to require cleanup, or where cleanup has been completed and institutional controls are in place if required, as reported by cooperative agreement recipients.
(PM B34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
7,000
7,000
Jobs
Actual
6,447
5,593
10,141
12,376
11,229
9,661
Explanation of Results: Jobs leveraged varies from year-to-year as it is dependent on the final use of brownfields sites. Hie relatively large accomplishment numbers in
FYs 2013,2014 and 2015 were due to improved reporting and several very large projects.
Additional Information: This measure tracks the number of cleanup and redevelopment jobs leveraged by assessment or cleanup activities conducted with EPA
Brownfields funding, as reported by cooperative agreement recipients at a specific property.
(PM B37) Billions of dollars of cleanu
p and redevelopment funds leveraged ai
Brownfields sites.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
l.l
l.l
l.l
Dollars
(Billions)
Actual
2.14
1.2
1.54
1.29
1.71
1.47
Explanation of Results: Cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged varies from year-to-year as it is influenced by the types of sites available for funding and economic
conditions.
Additional Information: This measure tracks the number of additional dollars leveraged by assessment or cleanup activities conducted with EPA Brownfields funding, as
reported by cooperative agreement recipients at a specific property.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
595
-------
(3) Reduce
Chemical
Risks at
Facilities and
in
Communities
(PM CH2) Number of risk management plan inspections conducted.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
560
530
500
460
460
460
460
Inspections
Actual
630
652
539
466
376
343
Explanation of Results: Competing priorities make it difficult for EPA regions to set higher targets for conducting inspections. Between FY 2000 and FY 2016, more than
8,900 Risk Management Plan (RMP) inspections were completed. Of the 460 RMP facility inspections targeted for FY 2017, 36 percent will be conducted at high-risk
facilities, determined by factors such as nearby population and accident history.
Additional Information: The Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule implements Section 112(r) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. RMP requires facilities
(approximately 12,700) that use extremely hazardous substances to develop a Risk Management Plan. The information required from facilities under RMP helps local fire,
police, and emergency response personnel prepare for and respond to chemical emergencies.
Objective 2 - Preserve Land: Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste generation and toxicity, promoting proper
management of waste and petroleum products, and increasing sustainable materials management.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA made steady progress under this objective. By FY 2016, 72.5% of underground storage tank (UST) facilities are in significant operational
compliance with leak detection and release prevention requirements, and the number of UST releases has decreased 10.25% over the past seven
years. In FY 2016, EPA collaborated with states to update state underground storage tank regulations consistent with revised federal regulations.
A total of 9,037,319 tons of virgin materials were offset through Sustainable Materials Management in FY 2014 (most recent data). As part of this
program, EPA promoted three national strategies: the Federal Green Challenge, Electronics Challenge, and Food Recovery Challenge. These
strategies focused on using less environmentally intensive and toxic materials and employing downstream solutions to conserve resources for
future generations.
Challenges and opportunities:
The challenges faced by EPA include the 2.5 billion tons of solid, industrial, and hazardous wastes produced each year; potential health and
environmental risks from sudden releases at older waste management units and UST sites due to aging infrastructure or gaps in coverage of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program; and constrained ability to engage in international waste issues, such as toxic wastes
being moved across borders and different standards being applied to treat and dispose of wastes.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
596
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Waste
Generation
and Recycling
(PM SMI) 1
"ons of materials and prot
ucts offsetting use of virgin resources t
irough sustainable materials management.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
8,549,502
8,501,537
8,603,033
9,346,830
9,450,000
9,550,000
Tons
Actual
9,002,588
8,795,750
9,037,319
Data Avail
5/2017
Data Avail
11/2018
Explanation of Results: As part of its sustainable materials management program, EPA promoted three national strategies: the Federal Green Challenge, the Electronics
Challenge, and the Food Recovery Challenge. These strategies focused on using less environmentally intensive and toxic materials and employing downstream solutions,
like reuse and recycling, to conserve resources for future generations. EPA worked with other federal agencies, state and tribal governments, and non-governmental
organizations to promote sustainability goals through these and other initiatives. For comparison, a total of 258 million tons of municipal solid waste were generated in FY
2014. EPA also attributes a portion of the national recycling total (89.4 million tons in 2014) to various agency efforts.
(PM MW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
14
3
3
10
10
10
10
Tribes
Actual
17
13
26
20
16
15
Explanation of Results: As of the end of September 2016,224 of 574 federally-recognized tribes were covered by an integrated waste management plan.
Additional Information: This measure shows the number of tribes covered by a new integrated solid waste management plan during the year. These plans were developed
with direct tribal funding as well as funds from EPA and other federal agencies. EPA also offered technical assistance to tribes, such as that provided through tribal circuit
riders.
(2) Minimize
Releases of
Hazardous
Waste and
Petroleum
Products
(PM HWO)
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
110
115
115
Facilities
Actual
130
117
114
129
120
111
Explanation of Results: Target was missed partially due to the loss of permit writers with specialized expertise in the last few years, increasing the number of facilities
covered by the remaining permit writers. We believe the FY 2017 target is attainable through efficiency improvements and better training for new staff.
Additional Information: Initial and updated controls for hazardous waste facilities are essential to maintaining protective standards, operating conditions, and up to date
equipment for the safe management of hazardous wastes.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
597
-------
(PM PCB) Number of approvals issued for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) c
eanup, stora
ge and disposal activities.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
150
200
200
200
Approvals
Actual
254
218
175
Explanation of Results: Target was missed due to a focus on highest priority approvals (based on risk reduction potential, sensitive population proximity, time sensitive
approvals) that typically require more resources, as well as priority work in non-PCB areas such as corrective action cleanups which use many of the same staff and
expertise. Additionally, some EPA regions received fewer requests than in past years, reducing their total achievements compared with predicted workload. EPA issued
1,625 approvals between FY 2008 and FY 2016.
Additional Information: This measure tracks all approvals issued by EPA under Section 761 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for PCBs. Approvals are
initiated by the individual/company and submitted to EPA for review. EPA does not have any way to identify all the PCB approval needs in a given year and relies mainly
on historical information to estimate the upcoming "workload" for approvals in setting targets.
(PM ST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with both
release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
66
66.5
67
70
70.5
71
71.5
Percent
Actual
71
71.3
71.6
72.5
72.6
72.5
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, there were 93,846 on-site inspections of USTs.
Additional Information: Hie Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires states and EPA to inspect all USTs every three years.
(PM ST1) Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to five percent (5%) fewer than the prior year's
target.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
<8,550
<8,120
<7,715
<7,330
<6,965
<6,615
<6,285
Releases
Actual
5,998
5,674
6,128
6,847
6,830
5,582
Explanation of Results: Confirmed releases returned to a long-term downward trend, after a temporary increase in releases reported in one state (New Jersey) from FY
2013 through FY 2015. EPA updated the UST regulations in 2015 in order to further reduce releases.
Additional Information: The UST prevention program works to ensure that underground sources of drinking water (groundwater) are protected from petroleum and
associated chemicals leaking from USTs. There are 560,872 federally regulated USTs in the United States at approximately 202,000 facilities.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
598
-------
Objective 3 - Restore Land: Prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants and clean up and restore polluted sites
for reuse.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA made steady progress within the Facility Response Plans (FRP), Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC), emergency
preparedness, Superfund removal, Superfund remedial, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective action (RCRA CA), PCB cleanup,
and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup programs. Cleanup programs remediate contaminated land so it can be safely reused or
continue to be used, creating more resilient, healthy, and vibrant communities. Under this objective, more than 83% of Superfund and close to
92% of RCRA CA sites have eliminated unacceptable human exposure to contaminants, and an additional 9,640 sites were made ready for
anticipated use (RAU), which contributed to the FY 2016-2017 Agency Priority Goal (APG). Many of these sites are located in economically
distressed communities that suffer from disproportionate and adverse environmental exposures.
Challenges and opportunities:
While EPA met the overall FY 2016 cleanup target under the FY 2016-2017 APG, Superfund and RCRA missed cleanup targets. Delays in
assessment, investigation, and design work that bring sites into the remedy construction stage may cause future challenges in the cleanup
programs.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Emergency
Preparedness
and Response
(PM CI) Score on annua
Core NAR.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
60
70
72
75
80
82
83
Percent
Actual
77.5
75.8
82.2
78.3
70.9
Data Avail
2017
Explanation of Results: Hie Core NAR evaluation score is derived from a combination of response readiness exercises at the regional level to identify strengths and gaps
in response readiness. These exercises are designed to evaluate regional standard operating procedures, Emergency Operations Center, procedures, equipment knowledge,
area planning, coordination/outreach. Beginning in FY 2014, EPA redesigned the evaluation to focus on a performance based approach, which resulted in lower results.
With redesign of the Core NAR evaluations, the result has been decreasing during recent fiscal years.
Additional Information: The Core National Approach to Response (NAR) score reported for this measure is based upon the combination of two scores, one which
measures day-to-day response readiness and another that measures national preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. The maximum score
is 100. Beginning in FY 2014, the Core NAR evaluation has taken place after the end of the fiscal year in order to capture a more complete picture of response readiness.
Results are reported in the following year.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
599
-------
(PM 137) Number of Superfund removals completed.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
275
275
275
Removals
Actual
278
226
Explanation of Results: Target was missed due to difficulty in predicting how many threats will arise in a year. EPA quickly responds when these events take place.
Additional Information: Implemented in FY 2015, this measure combined the retired Superfund-lead (PM 132) and Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)-lead removals
with EPA oversight (PM 135) measures. EPA continues to internally track results for both Superfund-lead and PRP-lead removals with agency oversight.
(PM 337) Percentage of all Federal Response Plan (FRP) inspected facilities found to be non-compliant which are
brought into compliance.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
30
35
40
50
60
60
60
Percent
Actual
48
73
78
79
79
82
Explanation of Results: This measure tracks FRP facilities that have been inspected and brought into compliance since FY 2010. From FY 2010 to FY 2016, 872
facilities were brought into compliance out of a total of 1,063 facilities that were found to be out of compliance.
Additional Information: Hie FRP rule requires certain facilities (approximately 4,500) to submit a response plan and prepare to respond to a worst case oil discharge or
threat of a discharge. Oil spills in these facilities have a greater potential than typical SPCC facilities to cause harm to human health and the environment.
(PM 338) Percentage of all Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) inspected facilities found to be non-
compliant which are brought into compliance.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
30
35
40
50
60
60
60
Percent
Actual
45
63
69
72
74
78
Explanation of Results: This measure tracks SPCC facilities that have been inspected and brought into compliance since FY 2010. From FY 2010 to FY 2016, 2,519
facilities were brought into compliance out of a total of 3,227 facilities that were found to be out of compliance.
Additional Information: The SPCC rule helps facilities (approximately 640,000) prevent a discharge of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. Oil spills at
certain high-risk SPCC facilities have a greater potential than non-high risk SPCC to cause harm to human health and the environment.
(2) Clean Up
Contaminated
(PM 115) Number of Superfund remedial site assessments comp
eted.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Land
Target
900
900
650
700
850
675
675
Assessments
Actual
1,020
1,151
772
794
869
703
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
600
-------
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA and its state and tribal partners completed a cumulative total of 94,594 remedial site assessments. At the start of FY
2016, approximately 1,900 sites in the Superfund Active site inventory needed assessment, and an additional 300 new sites were expected to be assessed. Hie 703
assessments completed in FY 2016 included 351 assessments at sites already in the Active site inventory and 352 assessments at new sites. The performance trend reflects
a variety of challenges, including the complexity of remaining sites, emerging contaminants, and changing screening/toxicity values.
Additional Information: Remedial site assessments collect site data to determine if cleanup attention may be needed at a potential hazardous waste site. Multiple and
progressively more complex assessments may be required to make this determination at a site.
(PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human exposures brought under control.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
Sites
Actual
10
13
14
9
10
12
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA ensured that 1,418 final and deleted NPL sites, and 33 non-NPL sites with Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)
agreements in place, met the criteria to be determined human exposure under control.
Additional Information: This measure documents long-term human health protection by measuring progress achieved in controlling unacceptable human exposures at
Superfund sites. Beginning in FY 2014, performance results have included non-NPL SAA sites.
(PM CA1) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with
luman exposures to toxins under control.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
72
81
85
87
90
92
94
Percent
Actual
77
81
85
87
90
92
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA achieved human exposures under control at 92 percent of RCRA corrective action facilities (3,476 facilities).
Additional Information: There are a total of 3,779 corrective action facilities in the priority 2020 corrective action universe. EPA is continually assessing the priority
facilities and every three years makes necessary modifications to the priority baseline, in conjunction with our Strategic Plan cycle.
(PM CA2) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with migration of contaminatet
groundwater under control.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
64
69
73
77
80
84
88
Percent
Actual
67
72
76
79
82
84
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA achieved groundwater contamination under control at 84 percent of RCRA corrective action facilities (3,174 facilities).
Additional Information: There are a total of 3,779 corrective action facilities hi the priority 2020 corrective action universe. EPA is continually assessing the priority
facilities and every three years makes necessary modifications to the priority baseline, hi conjunction with our Strategic Plan cycle. Safe drinking water and the protection
of ground water are agency priorities.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
601
-------
(PM CA5) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with
'inal remedies constructed.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
38
46
51
55
60
64
69
Percent
Actual
42
47
51
56
60
64
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA achieved final remedies at 64 percent of RCRA corrective action facilities (2,418 facilities).
Additional Information: There are a total of 3,779 corrective action facilities in the priority 2020 corrective action universe. EPA is continually assessing the priority
facilities and every three years makes necessary modifications to the priority baseline, in conjunction with our Strategic Plan cycle.
(PM CA6) Percentage of RCRA corrective action facilities with corrective act
tion performance standarc
s attained.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
21
24
30
32
Percent
Actual
24
28
31
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA achieved the goal of performance standards attained (these are the cleanup standards required to ensure protection of
human health and the environment at an individual facility) at 31 percent of RCRA corrective action facilities (1,171 facilities).
Additional Information: There are a total of 3,779 corrective action facilities in the priority 2020 corrective action universe. EPA is continually assessing the priority
facilities and every three years makes necessary modifications to the priority baseline, in conjunction with our Strategic Plan cycle.
(PM 111) Percentage of confirmed releases pending cleanup completion at LUST facilities.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
15
14
13
12
Percent
Actual
18
16
15
14
14
13
Explanation of Results: As of the end of FY 2016, 532,420 releases have been reported, 461,441 (or 87 percent) of which have been cleaned up.
(PM 112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
12,250
11,250
10,100
9,000
8,600
8,600
8,600
Cleanups
Actual
11,169
10,927
11,582
10,393
9,869
8,977
Explanation of Results: Hie performance trend reflects a variety of challenges, including the complexity of remaining sites, an increased state workload, a decrease in
available state resources and the increasing costs of cleanups.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
602
-------
(PM 113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration in Indian country.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
38
42
42
37
30
26
26
Cleanups
Actual
42
47
18
26
32
30
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA completed a cumulative total of 1,138 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian country, out of a universe of
approximately 1,409 confirmed releases. This is a subset of the national total of461,441 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups completed.
(PM 141) Number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
22
22
19
15
13
13
13
Completions
Actual
22
22
14
8
14
13
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA completed construction at 1,188 final and deleted NPL sites and 9 non-NPL sites with SAA agreements in place. The
performance trend reflects a variety of challenges, including the complexity of remaining sites, emerging contaminants, and changing screening/toxicity values.
Additional Information: A construction completion Superfund site has completed physical construction of all cleanup actions. Beginning in FY 2014, performance results
have included non-NPL Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) sites.
(PM 152) Number of Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migrat
ion brought under contro
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
15
15
15
15
13
13
13
Sites
Actual
21
18
18
11
15
17
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA ensured that 1,132 final and deleted NPL sites, and 23 sites with SAA agreements in place, met the criteria to be
determined Groundwater Migration Under Control.
Additional Information: Bringing groundwater migration under control ensures that contamination is below protective, risk-based levels or that, where the migration is
stabilized, there is no acceptable discharge to surface water. Beginning in FY 2014, performance results have included non-NPL Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)
sites.
(PM 170) Number of remedial action
projects completed at Superfund sites.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
103
130
115
115
105
105
105
Projects
Actual
132
142
121
115
104
105
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
603
-------
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA has completed 702 remedial action projects at filial and deleted NPL sites and 17 remedial action projects at non-NPL
sites with SAA agreements in place. The performance trend reflects a variety of challenges, including the complexity of remaining sites, emerging contaminants, and
changing screening/toxicity values.
Additional Information: A remedial action project completion at a Superfund site refers to the construction or implementation of a discrete scope of activities supporting
Superfund site cleanup. Beginning in FY 2014, performance results have included non-NPL Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) sites.
(PM FF1) Percentage of Superfund federal facility
sites construction complete.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
86
87
88
85
Percent
Actual
84
84
84
Explanation of Results: New Operable Units (OUs) and associated data were added to the program in FY 2016 following the launch of the new Superfund Enterprise
Management System (SEMS) Edit Site Schedule Module, causing the result to decrease slightly. (Adding OUs increases the denominator of the measure and therefore
lowers the overall percentage.) EPA expects the addition of OUs to continue.
Additional Information: This measure is based on the average of three specific factors: 1) OU percent complete; 2) Total cleanup actions percent complete; and 3)
Duration of cleanup actions percent complete. The Federal Facility NPL Universe captured in this measure is 174 sites which contain 2,136 OUs. OUs are commonly
added to the Federal Facilities Program through site discovery and emerging contaminants such as perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In FY 2016, the Federal Facilities
program completed 52 Decision Document and 44 Remedial Action Completions while adding 24 OUs.
(PM S10) Number of Superfund sites made ready for anticipated use site-wide.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
65
65
60
55
45
45
45
Sites
Actual
65
66
56
45
45
41
Explanation of Results: Through FY 2016, EPA ensured that 787 final and deleted NPL sites, and 6 non-NPL sites with SAA agreements in place, met the criteria to be
determined site-wide ready for anticipated use. Hie performance trend and the missed target reflect a variety of challenges, including the complexity of remaining sites,
emerging contaminants, and changing screening/toxicity values.
Additional Information: This measure reflects the importance of considering future land use as part of the cleanup process by tracking the number of sites meeting the
following criteria: All aspects of the cleanup are in place and have been achieved for any media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses, so that
there are no unacceptable risks; all land use restrictions or other controls required as part of the cleanup are in place; and Sites are final or deleted NPL sites, or non-NPL
SAA sites, that have reached the construction completion milestone. SAA sites were included in performance results beginning in FY 2014.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
604
-------
Objective 4 - Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country: Directly implement federal environmental
programs in Indian country and support federal program delegation to tribes. Provide tribes with technical assistance and support capacity
development for the establishment and implementation of sustainable environmental programs in Indian country.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, has highlighted this objective as a focus area for improvement for the third
consecutive year.
EPA developed a multi-year, agency-wide strategy primarily focused on an assessment to examine EPA direct implementation (DI) of programs to
protect human health and the environment in Indian country. In FY 2016, EPA completed Direct Implementation of Federal Environmental
Programs in Indian Country, a framework for EPA's DI work, and finalized a nationally consistent methodology for assessing its DI
responsibilities and activities on a program-by-program basis in Indian country. The agency will complete the first DI program assessment, for the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) program, in FY 2017.
Efforts also continue in two supporting areas: 1) standardizing tribal data by using a tribal identifier code across its data systems to identify
regulated facilities in Indian country; and 2) providing Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) grants to tribes to build tribal capacity and
support the development of EPA-Tribal Environmental Plans (ETEPs) to align tribal and EPA priorities through joint planning.
Challenges and opportunities: EPA direct implementation faces multiple barriers including tribal diversity (population, culture, geography,
economic development, expertise, income, priorities); unique legal and policy issues associated with federal, tribal, and state law; limited quality-
controlled information for decision-making; and competing demands and priorities to implement more than nine major federal environmental
statutes for 567 federally recognized tribes. These factors present current challenges to protecting human health and the environment in Indian
country, although, as they are resolved, become opportunities to build more effective and efficient environment and human health protections:
• Direct Implementation: EPA is the primary implementer of environmental regulatory programs in Indian country. Most tribes are not seeking
authority to implement federal regulatory environmental programs (although more tribes are taking on monitoring opportunities). As of the
end of FY 2016, EPA had approved 109 non-grant treatment in a manner similar to a state (TAS) applications for 82 tribes, and only 12
individual tribal programs include compliance and enforcement authority for certain parts of EPA statutes.
• Tribal Data: Until the tribal identifier code or equivalent is fully utilized, EPA has only limited or inadequate data to fully, uniformly and
successfully assess the extent of EPA direct implementation responsibilities.
• GAP/ETEPs: Where tribes have not implemented an ETEP, establishing priorities for the use of GAP funds can be challenging.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
605
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental
programs in
Indian country.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
18
22
24
25
25
25
25
Percent
Actual
17
21
19
19
20
20
(1) Improve
Human Health
and the
Environment
in Indian
Explanation of Results: Hie percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory programs has leveled off. Challenges include tribal diversity (population, culture,
geography, income, economic development, program management expertise, priorities, etc.); unique legal and policy issues with federal, tribal and state law, and
competing demands and priorities. Opportunities include the GAP Performance Management System currently under development, which is intended to assess the
progress of GAP grant funding to encourage development of tribal capacity to implement federal environmental programs in Indian country.
Additional Information: There are 572 tribal entities, including tribes and inter-tribal consortia, that are eligible for GAP funding.
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian
country.
Country
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
52
54
57
58
58
58
58
Percent
Actual
52
54
56.5
31
36
54
Explanation of Results: The percent of tribes conducting EPA approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities has leveled off. Challenges include tribal
diversity (population, culture, geography, income, economic development, program management expertise, priorities, etc.); unique legal and policy issues with federal,
tribal and state law, and competing demands and priorities. Opportunities include the GAP Performance Management System currently under development, which is
intended to assess the progress of GAP grant funding to encourage development of tribal capacity to implement federal environmental programs in Indian country.
Additional Information: There are 572 tribal entities, including tribes and inter-tribal consortia, that are eligible for GAP funding.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
606
-------
Goal 4 at a Glance
ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source.
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 12 Not Met: 6 Data Unavailable: 10
(Total Measures: 28)
fV ZQ16 Oalijjiciora'
_ Address"*!* Ofmste Change
a*Kl Imp-Dv'ng Air Quo I fly, S1S6U66
~ P rotectrg America's Waters, 54,043,437
a Oeming Up Conwnunrties ard
Advancing Sustarabe Deveopmert, S3.Z9C.17?
_ Ensuring 1 fie Soltety of Chemicals
sod Preventing Fottuhon, S740.373
~ Enftarrirg:Env'*tir*nenta Laws. 5792.974
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Mil
NdMri
Objective 1
Qdjeclrve 2
Strategic Objective Overview
FT 2016 Obligations*
H of Soil 4 Fundi
Objective 4.1: Ensure Chemical Safety.
Reduce the risk and increase die safety of chemcals Shat enter our pri»ducts, our
environment and our bodies.
5&S6.734
S2.7M
Objective 4.2: Promote Pollution Prevention.
Conserve and arotect natural resoL'-ces by promoting poJIution prevention and
the adopton of ot'ner sustairab ity practices by companies, communities,
governmental organizations, and indvidua s.
553,838
7.31S
Go-al 4 Total
$740,573
100.0%
*AJI figures in thousands
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
607
-------
FY 2016 EPA Programs and Activities Contributing to Goal 4
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research
Endocrine Disruptors
Lead Risk Reduction and Lead Categorical Grant Programs
International Sources of Pollution
Pesticides Program Implementation Categorical Grant Program
Pollution Prevention
Pollution Prevention Categorical Grant Programs
Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Science Policy Biotechnology
Toxics Release Inventory
Trade and Governance
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
608
-------
Goal 4: Ensuring The Safety Of Chemicals And Preventing Pollution
Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source
Objective 1 - Ensure Chemical Safety: Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals that enter our products, our environment and our
bodies.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
In FY 2016, EPA made significant progress to meet the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act (PRIA) statutory deadline of
completing registration review risk assessments and making decisions by 2022 on all pesticides registered prior to October 1, 2007 — exceeding
the targets established for FY 2016 in the number of dockets opened (the first step in the registration review process) and final work plans
completed. EPA completed 99% of PRIA decisions on time, registered 20 new active ingredients, and completed 213 new use registration
decisions. The agency also took a number of important steps in the fight to control the spread of the Zika virus. EPA approved five Section 18
Pesticide Emergency Exemptions to control mosquito populations (completing 1 in only 8 days and others in shorter than usual timeframes);
expedited 96 actions to ensure an adequate supply of DEET repellent and other vector control products; issued a draft malathion human health risk
assessment and provided mosquito control professionals advice on how malathion can safely be applied aerially; and extended an Experimental
Use Permit (EUP) for a novel mosquito vector control product. The agency also exceeded the target for the percentage of registration review
chemicals with identified endangered species concerns for which EPA mitigated the risk prior to consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, saving time and resources; completed the first-ever nationwide draft Biological Evaluations for
three organophosphates; completed a Preliminary Pollinator Assessment for imidacloprid, the first comprehensive bee assessment for one of the
neonicotinoid insecticides which are suspected of affecting bees; and issued two guidance documents to address exposure and effects testing for
assessing the risks of pesticides to bees and implementation of these testing needs for regulatory decision making.
EPA successfully applied high throughput screening (HTS) and computational toxicology (CompTox) approaches to EDSP Tier 1 screening for
one chemical in FY 2016 and is preparing to complete approximately 1,000 more in FY 2017. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP) decision was completed for exemption of the chemical kaolin from the requirements of the EDSP on November 6, 2015. Pursuant to the
requirements of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Section 408(p), EPA has evaluated kaolin, the pesticide active ingredient
involved in Registration Review Case #4076 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0751). Kaolin is not anticipated to produce in humans or any other organism an
effect similar to that produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone. After reviewing public comments solicited from a
June 19, 2015 Federal Register Notice, EPA concluded that the Estrogen Receptor "ER Model" data is a sufficient alternative to satisfy the
following EDSP Tier 1 assays: 1) Estrogen Receptor (ER) binding, 2) ER Transcriptional Activation (ERTA), and 3) uterotrophic assay.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law in June 2016. The new law, which amends the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), will strengthen EPA's ability to carry out its strategic objective to ensure the safety of chemicals in or entering
the marketplace. The agency has developed an action plan for implementing the law's requirements and already completed several first-year steps.
Regulatory actions under TSCA Section 6 are in progress to address risks identified in three of the five risk assessments completed prior to
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
609
-------
Objective 1 - Ensure Chemical Safety: Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals that enter our products, our environment and our
bodies.
passage of the new law. EPA made faster-than-expected progress in reducing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) human blood serum concentrations,
and improved transparency by expanding its online ChemView portal and continuing the review of new Confidential Business Information claims.
Challenges and opportunities:
EPA faced several challenges in FY 2016. Due to the high priority of addressing the spread of Zika, the agency missed the Section 18 Pesticide
Emergency Exemption review timeliness target by three days (target 45 days/actual 48 days). However, EPA still effectively addressed Zika
concerns by providing expert technical assistance and communications support to the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and federal and state response teams. Compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act remained a significant
challenge for the Pesticides Program as it kept pace with the statutorily-mandated deadlines for registration of new pesticides and registration
review of previously registered pesticides.
The agency validated dozens of rapidly-evolving Tox21 screening and testing tools with a focus on developing the steroidogenesis and thyroid
pathways/models. These efforts required continuous coordination with other federal agencies and our international partners to develop tools and
tests for screening chemicals for potential endocrine disruption.
The new TSCA law will reduce challenges the agency has faced in obtaining chemical testing data, assessing chemicals, meeting the thresholds
for commencing risk reduction actions and addressing unwarranted confidentiality claims. Similarly, older homes (built before 1978) with lead-
based paint continue to pose risks to children's health. The agency continues to experience difficulty in meeting its performance targets for Lead-
Safe Certified firms, in part because renovation firms are applying for recertification at a lower than expected rate of about 25%. However, the
supply of certified firms appears to meet current consumer demand.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Protect
Human Health
from Chemical
Risks
(PM Jll) Reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with organophosphates and carbamate
insecticides in the general population.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
10
15
25
30
30
30
Percent
Actual
20
25
27
Data Avail
10/2017
Data Avail
10/2018
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
610
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: Measure results were corrected to report data in the years in which the incidents occurred rather than two years later when the data became
available as was done in the past (i.e., 2-year data lag). For example, the data received in October 2016 covers incidents that occurred in FY 2014. All reductions represent
decreases from the number of incidents in 2011. With this corrected alignment, EPA cannot report the FY 2015 result until 2017 and the FY 2016 result until 2018 due to
the two-year data lag.
Additional Information: Percent reduction to moderate to severe exposure incidents are calculated from 2008 data (316 exposure incidents) as reported in the American
Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning Data System (NPDS) for organophosphates and carbamate pesticides.
(PM 008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
1.5
No Target
Established
1.0
No Target
Established
1.0
No Target
Established
Percent
Actual
Biennial
2.1
Biennial
1.2
Biennial
Data Avail
10/2018
Explanation of Results: FY 2014 target not attained but performance improved considerably from FY 2012. On a long-term basis, the incidence of elevated blood lead
levels among young children has declined dramatically (by more than 85% in the past 15 years). In 2017, EPA is doing outreach, training and enforcement in targeted
low-income and minority communities across the country.
Additional Information: Data released by the CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) for the 2007-2010 sampling period showed
that an estimated 2.6% of children ages 1-5 had elevated blood lead levels (5 ug/dl or greater). Background information is available on EPA's website at
www.epa.gov/lead. Data for this measure are reported biennially.
(PM 10D) Percent differc
geometric mean for non-
;nce in the ge
ow income c
ometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the
lildren 1-5 years old.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
13
No Target
Established
20
No Target
Established
25
No Target
Established
Percent
Actual
Biennial
34.8
Biennial
34.0
Biennial
Data Avail
10/2018
Explanation of Results: FY 2014 target not attained. Although long-term biomonitoring data (from NHANES) show considerable progress, with the income-based
disparity in blood lead levels narrowing from 45% in FY 2002 to 34% in FY 2014, there have been challenges in reaching communities where the need is greatest.
Additional Information: Data released by the CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) for the 2007-2010 sampling period showed
that the estimated difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5
years old was 28.4%. Data for this measure are reported biennially.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
611
-------
(PM D6A) I
deduction in concentration of PFOA in serum in the
general population.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
l
No Target
Established
25
No Target
Established
41
No Target
Established
Percent
Reduction
Actual
32
Biennial
37
Biennial
Data Avail
10/2018
Explanation of Results: EPA exceeded its PFOA reduction targets in the FY 2012 and FY 2014 reporting cycles. Hie agency has taken a range of voluntary and
regulatory actions to address concerns with PFOA. One of these actions is the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program that was launched in 2006 with the eight major
companies in the industry committing to work toward eliminating emissions and product content of PFOA by 2015. All of the participating companies in the voluntary
program have met the PFOA Stewardship Program goals. As a result of these actions, blood concentrations of PFOA have been decreasing, as evidenced by NHANES
reports.
Additional Information: Data for this measure are derived from Centers for Disease Control's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) on PFOA
concentration in the general population. The geometric mean concentration in serum as determined from 2009-2010 sampling data is 3.07 |ig/L. Data for this measure are
reported biennially. Perfluoroalkyl substances, including PFOA, are a class of manmade chemicals that are very persistent in the environment and in the human body. As
a result, people may become exposed to these chemicals manufactured months or years in the past. Because they have been used in an array of consumer products, most
people have been exposed to these chemicals. Studies indicate that PFOA can cause reproductive and developmental liver, kidney and immunological effects in
laboratory animals and humans. In addition, PFOA has caused tumors in animal studies.
(PM E01) Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been
completed
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3
5
20
59
0
0
1,000
Chemicals
Actual
3
1
0
3
54
l
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
612
-------
Explanation of Results: Hie single result for FY 2016 was exemption of the chemical kaolin from the requirements of the EDSP on November 6, 2015. Based on EPA's
evaluation, kaolin is not anticipated to produce in humans or any other organism an effect similar to that produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, androgen, or thyroid
hormone.
Additional Information: These chemicals have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, steroidogenesis and/or thyroid systems. The EDSP has a universe of
chemicals of approximately 10,000 chemicals that is described at: https://www.epa.gov/endocrine-disruption/endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-edsp-universe-
chemicals. Tier 1 screening determines whether a chemical has the potential to interact with the endocrine system and requires more thorough testing. Tier 2 testing is
conducted to rule out bioactivity for chemicals that show more potential for endocrine bioactivity. If a chemical is determined to indeed have endocrine bioactivity after
completing EDSP Tier 2 testing, EPA would most likely conduct a complete risk assessment and risk mitigation exercise for that chemical. High throughput screening
(HTS) and computational toxicology (CompTox) tools for Estrogen Receptor (ER) are now used as alternatives to the Tier 1 assays. Implementing HTS and CompTox
methods allows EPA to screen a greater number of chemicals, while also reducing animal use. This measure tracks the number of chemicals with screening level decisions
based on integrated scientific reviews of: 1) Tier 1 assays; 2) other scientifically-relevant information (e.g., CFR158 data, published literature, high throughput endocrine
activity and exposure information); and 3) decisions based on other information that determines whether further endocrine-related testing is necessary for a chemical (e.g.,
regulatory status of the chemical). EDSP decisions for a chemical can range from determining potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, steroidogenesis and/or
thyroid hormone systems to otherwise determining whether further endocrine related testing is necessary. Fifteen decisions were completed through FY 2012. In FY 2015,
EPA published a Federal Register Notice incorporating ToxCast data for more than 1,800 chemicals that, combined with additional data, could be used to complete the
screening decisions.
(PM 012) Percent reduction of children's exposure
to rodenticides.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
10
5
5
10
25
25
25
Actual
12
17
24
25
Data Avail
10/2017
Data Avail
10/2018
Percent
Explanation of Results: Measure results were corrected to report data in the years in which the incidents occurred rather than two years later when the data became
available as was done in the past (i.e., 2-year data lag). For example, the data received in October 2016 covers incidents that occurred in FY 2014. All reductions represent
decreases from the number of incidents in 2011. With this corrected alignment, EPA cannot report the FY 2015 result until 2017 and the FY 2016 result until 2018 due to
the two-year data lag.
Additional Information: Percent reduction of the total number of confirmed and likely rodenticide exposures to children is calculated from 2008 data (11,674 rodenticide
exposures to children) from the Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System.
(PM RA1) Annual number of chemicals for which risk assessments are finalized through EPA's TSCA Existing
Chemicals Program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3
7
12
0
Chemicals
Actual
4
1
0
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
613
-------
Explanation of Results: FY 2016 target was missed for several reasons: EPA established a new step (problem formulation) for existing chemical assessments, which
provides additional public input prior to peer review and a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) peer review process to address stakeholder input. This measure is
discontinued after FY 2017 as it measures progress against a list of chemicals developed under the previous TSCA law. In June 2016, Congress passed amendments to
TSCA, establishing, among other things, a new plan for assessing existing chemicals. Hie program is currently making the changes needed to implement the new law,
which requires each assessment to be completed within three years. In addition, the scope of each assessment is broadened to include all commercial uses of the chemical
rather than only certain specific uses as determined by EPA. The first 10 chemicals to assess have been selected and published. Meanwhile, risk reduction actions are
being developed for three of the five chemicals assessed prior to enactment of the new law.
Additional Information: The universe for this measure comprises TSCA Work Plan Chemicals and related/similar chemicals. Zero chemicals had completed risk
assessments through FY 2013. All five of the chemicals for which the five risk assessments were completed in FY 2014 and FY 2015 are from the list of 67 TSCA Work
Plan Chemicals that was refreshed in October 2014. Background information is available on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-
TSCA.
(PM 009) Cumulative number of active certified Renovation Repair and Painting firms
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100,000
140,000
140,000
138,000
145,000
96,000
97,000
Firms
Actual
114,834
126,323
133,587
139,702
108,623
90,970
Explanation of Results: FY 2016 target was not attained in large part due to EPA's Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program reaching the end of the first 5-year
cycle of initial certifications at which time firms have to decide whether to recertify. To date, only about 25% of firms have sought recertification. The reasons may
include a decision to leave the industry, a shift in business emphasis to new home construction, or a lack of local demand for lead safe renovation services. EPA is not
aware of an acute shortage of certified lead renovation firms, but that is due in part to lower than expected demand.
Additional Information: Finns can become certified directly through EPA (tracked through Federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP)) or through an authorized state
program (tracked through grant reports/internal database). FY 2010 was the first year that firms submitted applications to EPA to become certified. The Renovation,
Repair and Painting (RRP) program reached the end of the first 5-year cycle of initial certifications in FY 2015 and firms have to make a decision about whether to
recertify. A renovation firm may choose to not recertify for a variety of reasons including a decision to leave the industry, a decision to focus on new home construction
rather than renovations, or a lack of local demand for lead safe renovation services. Alternatively, some new renovation firms continue to emerge and seek certification.
Background information is available on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program.
(PM 011) Number of Product Reregisl
tration Decisions
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
1,500
1,200
1,200
900
600
550
600
Decisions
Actual
1,218
1,255
709
292
562
306
Explanation of Results: FY 2016 target was not attained due to competing work for entomologists needed for conventional product reregistration. That work included
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) deadlines; and urgent, high-profile pesticide issues, including mosquito vectors of the Zika virus. By FY 2016, a total of
20,077 product reregistration decisions were made.
Additional Information: By FY 2012, a total of 18,208 product re-registrations decisions were made according to internal tracking as part of the product reregistration
process. The product reregistration universe is 25,044. Additional information is available on https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/reregistration-and-other-review-
programs-predating-pesticide-registration#Product.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
614
-------
(PM 091) Percent of decisions complef
ed on time (on or before PRIA or negol
tiated due dai
te).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
99
99
99
97.0
96
96
97
Percent
Actual
98.4
99.1
98.8
85
98.4
99
Additional Information: Annual average percentage of decisions completed on time from FY 2010-2012 was 99.0% according to EPA internal data. More information on
PRIA can be found on https://www.epa.gov/pria-fees/pria-overview-and-history.
(PM 10A) A
EPA effort 1
nnual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of
o process.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
92
95
95
95
95
95
95
Percent
Actual
95
97
99
100
99
99
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA processed more than 19,000 certification applications and 665 refund applications. Exceedance of this target reflects years of
concerted and successful efforts to expedite handling of abatement individual certification and refund applications, ensuring that homeowners will have access to a
sufficient pool of qualified abatement professionals to perform lead inspections, risk assessments and abatement work.
Additional Information: Annual average percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process over
the period of FY 2008-2012 was 94%. Data is obtained from Federal Lead Based Paint Program (FLPP) information system. Lead-based paint certification and refund
applications are applications received by EPA from firms for certification to perform lead-based paint activities or renovation, repair and painting work; or from
individuals for certification as risk assessor, inspector, abatement supervisor or abatement worker. In addition, EPA receives accreditation applications from training
providers to provide training in lead-based paint disciplines and for renovator and dust sampling technician work. Applications for refunds of certification fees are
sometimes received by EPA from these same sources (for example, if an application was mistakenly sent twice or an incorrect discipline requested).
(PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
21
22
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
Percent
Actual
22
22.5
23
23
Data Avail
10/2017
Data Avail
10/2018
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
615
-------
Explanation of Results: FY 2015 and FY 2016 data lags are due to delay in purchase of data; EPA is working to resolve this issue in FY 2017. The acres-treated was 23%
of total acreage in FY 2014 when the reduced-risk pesticide acre-treatments was 400,000,000 and total (all pesticides) was 1,768,000,000 acre-treatments.
Additional Information: Percentage of acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides was 22% of total acreage in FY 2011 when the reduced-risk pesticide acre-treatments
was 315,000,000 and total (all pesticides) was 1,444,000,000 acre-treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by USDA National Agricultural Statistic
Service and private marketing research data sources, serve as the basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments
count the total number of pesticide treatments each acre receives each year. Results are reported the end of the calendar year and have a one-year reporting data lag. Most
reduced-risk acre treatments are Bt (Bacillus thuringiellis) com and cotton and the use of glyphosate and others in field crops. Bt com is a variant of maize that has been
genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacterium BT (a built in pesticide).
(PM 164) Number of pest
ticide registration review (
ockets opened.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
70
70
72
73
73
66
25
Dockets
Actual
81
79
77
75
84
88
Explanation of Results: As of FY 2016, 700 dockets have been opened, with the remaining 25 scheduled in FY 2017. Hie program has emphasized completing the
opening of dockets in order to meet the 2022 mandated completion date for registration review. EPA anticipates completing the opening of dockets in 2017 (the remaining
balance of dockets).
Additional Information: By FY 2012, a total of 376 chemical case work dockets were opened according to EPA internal data.
(PM 230) Number of pest
ticide registration review final work plans completet
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
70
70
72
73
73
75
40
Work Plans
Actual
75
70
79
81
89
78
Explanation of Results: As of FY 2016, a total of 645 final work plans for registered pesticides have been completed. The program has exceeded the initial target in order
to work toward meeting the 2022 deadline for risk assessment decisions. EPA is ramping down opening of dockets and completing the work plans in order to focus on
completing risk assessments and making decisions to meet its statutory deadline by 2022.
Additional Information: By FY 2012, a total of 327 final work plans for registered pesticides were completed according to EPA internal data.
(PM 247) Percent of new
workers, consumers, or t
chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to
le environment.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
100
100
95
96
99
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
616
-------
Explanation of Results: Under the new TSCA law, any Section 5 new chemical assessments that had not been completed needed to be reassessed using the new
"unreasonable risk" criteria. Of the 78 TSCA Section 5 new chemical notices reassessed using TSCA Section 8(e) data submitted in FY 2015 (55 submissions with 74
tests), only one reassessment indicated that an unreasonable risk was missed in the prior review. A detailed analysis of FY 2016 data comparing information contained in
TSCA 8(e) notices received during FY 2016 will be available in the next fiscal year (FY 2017) due to the time needed to complete the research and analyses for the
detailed report. Hie agency intends to utilize these performance results together with provisions of the new TSCA law to help make further improvements to the new
chemical review process so that this kind of hazard can be identified during the chemical review.
Additional Information: Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment
was 97 percent over the period FY 2009-2012, as determined by averaging the annual performance results for this measure. Data obtained from the annual report, "Study
Comparing Premanufacture Notices (PMNs)/Low Volume Exemptions (LVEs) to Related 8(e) Chemicals." Results are calculated by comparing Section 8(e) notices
received in the fiscal year to previously reviewed PMNs. If a risk identified in a new Section 8(e) notice would not have been identified and mitigated by the review, then
the program has not met the performance target. Approximately 30 Section 8(e) notices submitted annually are compared to previous PMNs for purposes of determining
the annual performance result for this measure. Background information is available on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-
control-act-tsca.
(PM 998) E]
reliability oi
>A's TRI program will work with partners to conduct data quality checks to enhance accuracy and
' environmental data.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
500
500
600
600
600
Quality Checks
Actual
600
600
600
775
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's TRI Program and Regional coordinators focused on data quality calls with significant changes in releases and/or production
waste, including releases of Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals (PBTs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and Carcinogens. During FY 2016,
approximately 60 facilities completed certification of about 150 TRI reporting submissions, and 75 facilities made revisions to their 2014 and/or 2015 submissions which
resulted in significant data quality improvements.
Additional Information: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data checks improve the accuracy and reliability of environmental data. More than 21,000 facilities report to
EPA's TRI Program annually. The universe of facilities subject to the TRI reporting requirements includes all federal facilities (pursuant to Executive Order) that meet the
applicability criteria described in part 372, subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and, with some exceptions and/or limitations, facilities that are
classified within (under) any of the specific North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes that correspond to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes: 10,20-39, 4911,4931,4939, 4953, 5169, 5171, and 7389.
(PM C19) Percentage of CBI claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as
appropriate, as they are submitted.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
100
100
100
100
100
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
617
-------
Explanation of Results: EPA continues its consistently high performance in reviewing and, as appropriate, challenging new Confidential Business Information (CBI)
claims. Reviews conducted after June 22 reflect changes made by the new TSC A law. Hie amended TSCA law changes many of the rules relating to CBI and includes (1)
new submitter procedural requirements to make CBI claims, (2) new agency requirements for review of these claims, (3) potential time limits on these claims, and (4) new
requirements related to the management of materials treated as CBI.
Additional Information: Effective CBI review ensures that incoming claims are approved only where warranted and that all non-CBI data from health and safety studies
are made available to the public. Approximately 500 TSCA CBI claims are submitted per year for chemical identity, which potentially contain health and safety studies.
(PM E07) Annual number of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays for which validated alternatives have been developed, based
on high throughput assays and computational models.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
2
2
Assays and
Tools
Actual
3
Explanation of Results: After reviewing public comments solicited from a June 19,2015 Federal Register Notice, EPA concluded that the Estrogen Receptor (ER) Model
data is a sufficient alternative to satisfy the following Endocrine Disruptors Tier 1 assays: (1) Estrogen Receptor (ER) binding, (2) Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional
Activation (ERTA), and (3) uterotrophic assay.
Additional Information: In FY 2014, there were zero (of the 11) Tier 1 assays for which validated alternatives had been developed, based on high throughput assays and
computational models.
(2) Protect
Ecosystems
from Chemical
Risks
(PM 268) Percent of selected urban watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmark maximum concentrations for
three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
5,0, 10
No Target
Established
0, 0,0
No Target
Established
0, 0,0
No Target
Established
Percent
Actual
Biennial
0,0,9
Biennial
7, 0,0
Biennial
0,0,9
Explanation of Results: Increased sampling frequency revealed that carbaryl exceeded the benchmark maximum at one site. It is not clear if increased sampling at more
sites would reveal additional occurrences of monitored pesticides. Sampling frequency depends on the budget USGS/NAQWA has each year.
Additional Information: Urban watersheds are sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Data for this measure are reported
biennially. The number of sampling and the sampling points in USGS data were constantly changing year to year, depending on their funding. Results from previous
reports showed that the exceedances were at different monitoring sites. Starting in FY 2015, the agency is using data from 10 specified urban sites from the USGS national
monitoring sites in the future to provide consistency in data reporting. The monitoring sites were selected based on history of monitoring results, and anticipated
consistency in reporting from these national sampling sites. The 10 selected Urban Streams in National Network sites are: Norwalk River at Winnipauk, CT; Accotink
Creek near Annandale, VA; Swift Creek near Apex, NC; Sope Creek near Marietta, GA; Clinton River at Sterling Heights, MI; Shingle Creek at Minneapolis, MN;
Cherry Creek at Denver, CO; White Rock Creek at Dallas, TX; Little Cottonwood Creek at Salt Lake City, UT; Fanno Creek at Durham, OR. The exceedances are
calculated based on the number of exceedances divided by the total number of watersheds. The USGS NAWQA sites selected are the best long term source of surface
water monitoring data for a large number of pesticides and their degradates, with consistent QA procedures for both sampling and lab analysis, low detection limits, and
have been used by EPA for risk assessment work for over the last 15 years. The most sensitive aquatic benchmark for the chemical are posted on the website:
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benclimark.htm: Diazinon: 0.105 ug/L; Chlorpyrifos: 0.040 ug/L; Carbaryl: 0.5 ug/L.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
618
-------
(PM 269) Percent of selected agricultural watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmark maximum concentrations
for two key pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
No Target
Established
0, 10
No Target
Established
0,0
No Target
Established
0,0
No Target
Established
Percent
Actual
Biennial
7,7
Biennial
0,0
Biennial
0,0
Explanation of Results: EPA maintained zero exceedances for the chemicals of concern.
Additional Information: Agricultural watersheds are sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Data for this measure are reported
biennially. The number of sampling and the sampling points in USGS data were constantly changing year to year, depending on their funding. Results from previous
reports showed that the exceedances were at different monitoring sites. Starting in FY 2015, the agency is using data from 10 specified agricultural sites from the USGS
national monitoring sites in the future to provide consistency in data reporting. Hie monitoring sites were selected based on history of monitoring results, and anticipated
consistency in reporting from these national sampling sites. The 10 selected Agricultural Streams in National Network sites are: Canajoharie Creek near Canajoharie, NY;
Contentnea Creek at Hookerton, NC; South Fork Iowa River near New Providence, IA; Maple Creek near Nickerson, NE; Bogue Phalia near Leland, MS; Orestimba
Creek near Crows Landing, CA; Granger Drain at Granger, WA; Rock Creek at Twin Falls, ID; Zollner Creek near Mt. Angel, OR; Sugar Creek at New Palestine, IN. The
exceedances are calculated based on the number of exceedances divided by the total number of watersheds. The USGS NAWQA sites selected are the best long term
source of surface water monitoring data for a large number of pesticides and their degradates, with consistent QA procedures for both sampling and lab analysis, low
detection limits, and have been used by EPA for risk assessment work for over the last 15 years. The most sensitive aquatic benchmark for the chemical are posted on the
website: http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/ecorisk ders/aquatic life beiiclimark.htm: Malatliion=0.035 ug/L; Metliomyl=0.7 ug/L.
(PM 240) Maintain timeliness of FIFRA Section 18
Emergency Exemption Decisions
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Days
Actual
52
43
27
44
45
48
Explanation of Results: EPA did not meet the target due to the efforts on high profile yet challenging Section 18 cases involving vacated sulfoxaflor registrations, citrus
greening, and Zika.
Additional Information: Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizes EPA to allow an unregistered use of a pesticide for a
limited time if it is determined that an emergency condition exists (i.e. a serious pest problem which jeopardizes production of agricultural goods or public health).
Average number of days for Section 18 decisions from FY 2009-2012 was 46 days, according to EPA internal data.
(PM 276) Percent of registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA obtains
any mitigation of risk prior to consultation with DOC and DOI.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
5
5
15
5
5
65
Percent
Actual
0
0
0
65
80
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
619
-------
Explanation of Results: FY 2015 was the first reporting year in which EPA began to achieve mitigation of risk prior to consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Additional Information: Hie data are tracked internally by EPA. The data are obtained from ecological risk assessments and effects determinations prepared to support a
registration review case. Any mitigation of risk refers to label changes that are intended to reduce the environmental exposure and associated risk of pesticides to listed
species and/or their designated critical habitat. This may include such mitigation measures as reduction in the pesticide application rate and/or frequency of application,
changes to the timing of application, spray drift, buffers or more geographically specific mitigation measures via EPA's Bulletins Live! Two web-based tool in specific
areas where listed species and/or critical habitat are known to co-occur with potential pesticide use based on labeled registered uses.
Objective 2 - Promote Pollution Prevention: Conserve and protect natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of
other sustainability practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
In FY 2016, EPA made significant progress in preventing pollution at the source and furthering the objectives of Pollution Prevention (P2)
programs. The agency met annual performance targets for all six of its P2 outcome-based measures (most recent data), substantially exceeding
targets in four cases. The number of products newly qualified to bear the Safer Choice label was more than double the FY 2016 target.. In
addition, the agency aided small and medium-sized businesses by conducting more than 980 facility assessments through the Economy, Energy
and Environment (E3) Initiative and the Green Suppliers Network (GSN) Program. The agency also developed and piloted guidelines for product
environmental performance standards and ecolabels for federal procurement of products including furniture, flooring, paints and coatings.
Challenges and opportunities:
Challenges have included the tendency of many P2 grantees to report results at an aggregated level without a breakout of specific P2 practices and
corresponding environmental and economic results. The program tested a proposed template for grantees to use to report specific P2 actions taken
at the facility level and any corresponding economic and environmental outcomes.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Promote
Pollution
Prevention
(PM 264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced t
irough pollu
tion prevention.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
199.6
88.7
71.6
23.4
204.2
214.2
214.2
Pounds
(Millions)
Actual
154.8
214.9
231.5
190.3
205.2
Data Avail
10/2017
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
620
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: EPA's P2 Program achieved hazardous materials reductions from the sale of Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-
registered electronics devices (that meet standards using EPA's environmental hazards criteria) and from nationwide grant projects and some non-grant E3 projects
helping businesses reduce hazardous releases at the source.
Additional Information: There is a 1-year data lag. From FY 2008 through FY 2012, 1,437 million pounds were reduced—after removing 626 million pounds in reported
results that should not be expected to continue in future years due to: 1) atypical results, and 2) increased quality assurance standards for the results that come from states
and other grant recipients. For FY 2015, the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program reported "recurring results" of an additional 81 million pounds of hazardous materials
reduced. "Recurring results" are benefits produced in prior years that continue to deliver benefits over multiple years. Within the P2 Program, there is not a fixed standard
number of years that results will recur; rather, each P2 activity has a recurring results formula specific to the type of results and activities. Background information also is
available on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/p2.
(PM 297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTC02Eq) reduced or offset throu
gh pollution
prevention.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
2.19
1.74
1.46
1.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
MTC02Eq
(Millions)
Actual
2.8
3.9
3.4
3.0
3.16
Data Avail
10/2017
Explanation of Results: EPA's P2 Program achieved reductions in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent from the sale of EPEAT-registered electronics devices (that meet standards
using EPA's environmental MMTC02Eq criteria) and from nationwide grant projects and some non-grant E3 projects helping businesses reduce their greenhouse gas
releases at the source.
Additional Information: There is a one-year data lag. From FY 2008 through FY 2012,11.1 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MMTC02Eq) were
reduced—after removing 3.5 MMTC02Eq in reported results that should not be expected to continue in future years due to: 1) atypical results, and 2) increased quality
assurance standards for the results that come from states and other grant recipients. For FY 2015, the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program reported "recurring results" of an
additional 2.8 MMTC02Eq reduced. "Recurring results" are benefits produced in prior years that continue to deliver benefits over multiple years. Within the P2 Program,
there is not a fixed standard number of years that results will recur; rather, each P2 activity has a recurring results formula specific to the type of results and activities.
Background information also is available on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/p2.
(PM 262) Gallons of water reduced through pollution prevention.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
783
785
771
932
1,156
1,390
1,390
Gallons
(Millions)
Actual
1,397
1,175
936
1,618
1,433.4
Data Avail
10/2017
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
621
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: EPA's P2 Program achieved reductions in gallons of water from nationwide grant projects and some non-grant E3 projects that helped businesses
use water more efficiently.
Additional Information: There is a one-year data lag. From FY 2008 through FY 2012, 6.9 billion gallons were reduced—after removing 24 billion gallons in reported
results that should not be expected to continue in future years due to: 1) atypical results, and 2) increased quality assurance standards for the results that come from states
and other grant recipients. For FY 2015, the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program is reporting "recurring results" of an additional 3.7 billion gallons of water reduced.
"Recurring results" are benefits produced in prior years that continue to deliver benefits over multiple years. Within the P2 Program, there is not a fixed standard number
of years that results will recur; rather, each P2 activity has a recurring results formula specific to the type of results and activities. Background information also is available
on EPA's website at www.epa.gov/p2.
(PM 263) Business, institutional and government costs reduced t
hrough pollution prevention.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
268.5
196.9
195.6
133.3
362.6
445.6
445.6
Dollars Saved
(Millions)
Actual
533.7
737.4
594.9
587.5
609
Data Avail
10/2017
Explanation of Results: EPA's P2 Program achieved dollar savings from the sale of EPEAT-registered electronics devices (that meet EPA's cost-saving energy/material
conservation criteria) and from nationwide grant projects and some non-grant E3 projects that helped businesses save on their utilities and other costs once P2 practices
were adopted.
Additional Information: There is a one-year data lag. From FY 2008 through FY 2012, $1.85 billion were saved—after removing $231 million in reported results that
should not be expected to continue in future years due to: 1) atypical results, and 2) increased quality assurance standards for the results that come from states and other
grant recipients. For FY 2015, the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program reported "recurring results" of an additional $337 million dollars saved. "Recurring results" are
benefits produced in prior years that continue to deliver benefits over multiple years. Within the P2 Program, there is not a fixed standard number of years that results will
recur; rather, each P2 activity has a recurring results formula specific to the type of results and activities. Background information also is available on EPA's website at
www.epa.gov/p2.
(PM P2X) Annual Number of Additional Products
Recognized by the Safer Choice program
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
375
100
125
Product
Actual
101
248
Explanation of Results: The increase in number of safer products as compared to FY 2015 corresponded to the availability of the new Safer Choice logo.
Additional Information: Approximately 2,500 safer chemical products were recognized in FY 2013 by the Safer Choice Program. The number of products placed on the
Safer Choice Products list in FY 2014 was 171. The total number of products certified is affected by consolidation in the industry and other factors that would make it less
useful as a measure of performance. More information about the Safer Choice program, including currently recognized products and the criteria manufacturers must meet
to be recognized, is available at www.epa.gov/saferchoice.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
622
-------
(PM P2Y) Annual Number of Additional Chemicals Added to the Safer Chemical Ingredients List
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
Chemicals
Actual
77
100
Additional Information: Approximately 600 chemicals were on the Safer Chemical Ingredients List in FY 2013 under the Safer Choice Program. Hie number of products
placed on the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List in FY 2014 was 49. The total number of chemicals on the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List is affected by consolidation in
the industry and other factors that would make it less useful as a measure of performance. More information about the Safer Chemical Ingredients List, including currently
listed chemicals and criteria for listing, is available at http://www2.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-ingredients.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
623
-------
Goal 5 at a Glance
PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS
AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and crim-
inal enforcement. Use Next Generation Compliance strategies and tools to improve com-
pliance with environmental laws.
FY 2016 Performance Measures
Met: 9 Not Met: 6 Data Unavailable: 0 "
(Total Measures: 15)
u
JV 2016 QDlipHinns"
„ Addressing GFmstc Change 5
and Imp-wing Air quality, 5116.1-166
~ Protect! r-g America's WBten, Ł4.04-3:.437 Ł
_ Geaningyp Communities and
Advancing Susta'rab e Dewsfopment, S3.Z9P.177
_ Ensuring tf e Safety of Chemicals
and Preventing °o itfnr. 574QJF73
~ EntbrrirgEnv Tir'nenta Laws. 5792.974 0
FY 2DIE Performance Measures
1
~ M*:
~ hRMr
-
6
l~fl CilaPardrf
-
9
"
Objective 1
Strategic Objective Overview
FT 2016 OfaEgatiwii*
V of Goal 5 Funds
Objective 5.1: Enforce E nviron mental Laws to Achieve Compliance.
Pursue vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious
water. airr and chemical haja rds in communities to achieve compliance. Assure
strong, consistent and effective enforcement of federal environmental 1 aws
nationwide. Use Next GeneraOori Com pliance strategies and tools to irn prove
compliance and reduce pollution.
Ł792^.974
loo.ra
Goal 5 Total
$792,974
100.0%
•All figures in thousands
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND
ASSURING COMPLIANCE
624
-------
FY 2016 EPA Programs and Activities Contributing to Goal 5
Compliance Assistance Program
Economic Decision Sciences Research
Environmental Justice
Environmental Technology Verification Program, Monitoring and Enforcement Program
National Center for Environmental Innovation
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program
RCRA Corrective Action
Sector Grant Program
Superfund Enforcement
Sustainability Research
Sustainable Materials Management
Toxic Substances Compliance Grant Program
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND
ASSURING COMPLIANCE
625
-------
Goal 5: Protecting Human Health And The Environment By Enforcing Laws And Assuring Compliance
Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Use Next Generation Compliance
strategies and tools to improve compliance with environmental laws.
Objective 1 - Enforce Environmental Laws to Achieve Compliance: Pursue vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most
serious water, air, and chemical hazards in communities to achieve compliance. Assure strong, consistent, and effective enforcement of federal
environmental laws nationwide. Use Next Generation Compliance strategies and tools to improve compliance and reduce pollution.
Summary of progress toward strategic objective:
EPA's enforcement program continued to make steady progress toward its objective of pursuing the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards
within communities. In FY 2016, EPA met or exceeded its performance targets for civil judicial and administrative case conclusions, review of
open consent decrees, Superfund enforcement, and criminal enforcement. EPA achieves such progress by focusing on the highest impact
environmental problems through the National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs), other national priorities (e.g., drinking water), and regional
enforcement priorities, as well as by vigorously pursuing environmental benefits, such as commitments to clean up contaminated sites and to
install pollution control technologies.
In addition, EPA advanced the use of Next Generation (Next Gen) Compliance strategies throughout its enforcement and compliance program. In
FY 2016, EPA continued to make significant progress in including Next Gen Compliance tools within its enforcement settlements. The agency
included requirements for advanced monitoring equipment in eight lodged settlements for the year, including agreements with Tesoro Corp. and
Par Hawaii Refining under the Clean Air Act, and Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership and the Nevada Department of Transportation under the
Clean Water Act. The agency also continued to implement the Next Gen Enforcement 2015 Memorandum, setting forth the agency's commitment
to consider the use of Next Gen Compliance tools in all civil enforcement settlements.
Challenges and opportunities:
Aside from this progress, however a focus on higher-impact cases, combined with normal year-to-year variability of the enforcement case
settlement process, affected some of the agency's FY 2016 enforcement program results, contributing to missed targets for the number of federal
inspections and evaluations, pounds of air and water pollutants reduced, and volume of contaminated soil and groundwater media cleaned up.
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(1) Maintain
Enforcement
Presence
(PM 409) Number of federal inspections and evaluations.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
19,000
17,000
17,000
15,500
15,500
14,000
Inspections/Eval
uations
Actual
20,000
18,000
16,000
15,400
13,500
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
626
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: Inspections are an integral part of EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program. They are an important tool for officially assessing
compliance with environmental requirements. EPA is prioritizing the most significant inspections and evaluations and that has caused the overall number of federal
inspections to decrease. EPA also conducts off-site evaluations of facilities that are not historically counted as part of this measure.
(PM 410) Number of civi
judicial and administrative enforcement cases initiated.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3,300
3,200
3,200
2,700
2,700
2,700
Cases
Actual
3,000
2,400
2,300
2,400
2,400
Explanation of Results: EPA continued to pursue larger more complex, risk-based enforcement cases. This strategy leads to significant environmental and health gains,
but generally lower numbers of cases overall. These enforcement actions are initiated when the regulated community does not comply with environmental laws, or cleanup
is required for the protection of public health and the environment.
(PM 411) Number of civi
judicial and administrative enforcement cases concluded.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,400
2,400
2,400
Cases
Actual
3,000
2,500
2,300
2,400
2,400
Explanation of Results: EPA continued to pursue larger more complex, risk-based enforcement cases. This strategy leads to significant environmental and health gains,
but generally lower numbers of cases overall.
(PM 412) Percentage of open consent decrees reviewed for overall compliance status.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
91
91
100
99
100
(PM 078) Pt
costs equal
;rcentage of a
to or greater
11 Superfund
than $500,00(
statute of limitations cases addressed at sites with unaddressed past Superfund
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
100
100
100
100
100
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
627
-------
Program Area
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 285) Percentage of S
where EPA reaches a seti
(uperfund sit
tlement or ta
es having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government
its an enforcement action before starting a remedial action.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
95
99
99
99
99
99
99
Percent
Actual
100
100
100
100
100
100
Additional Information: EPA's enforcement program is based on the "polluter pays" principle, which provides that a party responsible for the pollution pays for cleaning
it up. The enforcement program applies this principle to preserve taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and
orphaned sites, which helps to make a visible difference in communities around the country by maximizing Superfund cleanups. In FY 1998, approximately 70 percent of
new remedial work at Superfund sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. By FY 2003, that percentage had increased such that a settlement was
reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal responsible parties before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites and
in FY 2016, EPA reached a settlement or started an enforcement action at 100 percent of the non-Federal sites with viable responsible parties.
(2) Support
Addressing
Climate
Change and
Improving Air
Quality
(PM 400) Millions of pounds of air po
lutants reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
480
480
450
350
310
310
240
Million Pounds
Actual
1,100
250
610
140
430
240
Explanation of Results: Results for this measure are highly variable from year to year because they are driven by a small number of very large cases.
Additional Information: As EPA continues to make progress addressing large air pollution violators, such as utilities, enforcement actions comprise cases with significant
public health impacts but a smaller number of pounds of pollution. We are increasingly focused on large sources of air toxics, where even small emissions reductions can
have significant health benefits.
(3) Support
Protecting
America's
Waters
(PM 402) Millions of pounds of water pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminat
ed through concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
320
320
320
280
250
250
200
Million Pounds
Actual
740
500
660
340
90
70
Explanation of Results: Results for this measure are highly variable from year to year because they are driven by a small number of very large cases.
Additional Information: Total pounds of pollution reduced per case is declining as we complete work on compliance agreements with the largest cities and begin to
address non-compliance in smaller cities, and continue our focus on other sources of water pollution that are smaller in number of pounds but very important to protecting
water quality.
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
628
-------
(4) Support
Cleaning Up
Communities
and Advancing
Sustainable
Development
(PM 405) M
enforcemen
illions of pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded
actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
6,500
6,500
6,000
5,000
2,400
2,400
2,000
Million Pounds
Actual
3,600
4,400
150
700
500
61,900
Explanation of Results: Hazardous: 61, 900 M lbs. Non-Hazardous: 13 M lbs. The results for this measure are driven by a small number of very large cases and,
therefore, can cause significant fluctuations in the results from year to year. For example, in FY 2016 over 98% of the total 61.9 billion pounds of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste reduced, treated, or eliminated came from one case - Mosaic (61.7). Given the types of cases that are nearing completion, EPA's shift in focus is expected
to result in many fewer millions of pounds of pollution reduced overall. In FY 2016, EPA reached a record Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
enforcement settlement with Mosaic LLC addressing violations at its phosphate chemical facilities in two states for mismanagement of hazardous wastes. Hie settlement
set a RCRA record for the quantity of hazardous waste reduced, treated, or eliminated through a concluded enforcement action.
Additional Information: Prior to FY 2016, this measure only included hazardous waste. Beginning in FY 2016, this measure reports (separately) both hazardous and non-
hazardous waste subtotals addressed and remediated through EPA enforcement actions. Non-hazardous waste subtotals were previously included in PM 404.
(PM 417) Millions of cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media EPA has obtained commitments to clean
up as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
300
275
225
200
200
200
Million Cubic
Yards
Actual
400
750
900
70
190
Explanation of Results: Results for this measure are highly variable from year to year because they are driven by a small number of very large cases.
Additional Information: Contaminated groundwater media, as defined for the Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs, is the volume of physical aquifer (both
soil and water) that will be addressed by the response action. The results for this measure are usually driven by a small number of very large cases, which can cause a
significant fluctuation in results from year to year depending on the types of cases concluded in any given year.
(5) Support
Ensuring the
Safety of
Chemicals and
Preventing
Pollution
(PM 404) M
enforcemen
illions of pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated through concluded
actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
3.8
3.8
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
Million Pounds
Actual
6.1
1,400
4.6
41
10
13
Additional Information: Prior to FY 2016, this measure included non-hazardous wastes. Beginning in FY 2016, non-hazardous wastes addressed and remediated through
EPA enforcement actions, which have been reported as part of this measure, are reported as part of PM 405. The results for this measure are usually driven by a small
number of very large enforcement cases, which yielded the majority of the pounds addressed and can cause significant fluctuations in results from year to year, depending
on the types of cases concluded in any given year.
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
629
-------
(6) Enhance
Strategic
Deterrence
through
Criminal
Enforcement
(PM 418) Percentage of criminal cases having the most significant health, environmental, and deterrence impacts.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
43
43
43
45
45
45
Percent
Actual
45
44
48
62
68
Additional Information: Hie mission of EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program is to investigate, help prosecute, and thereby deter the most egregious environmental
offenders. The criminal program collects data on a variety of case attributes to evaluate the range, complexity, and quality of our national docket. In 2010, the program
developed a case selection methodology to ensure the identification, investigation, and prosecution of cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence
impacts. The data elements used in this tier methodology include information about the human health and environmental impacts, the nature of the pollutant and the
release, and the profile and compliance history of the subject(s). Since instituting the tiering system, the percentage of "higher tier" cases has steadily risen, while total
open criminal investigations have dropped significantly - from 751 cases (FY 2012) to 475 cases (FY 2016).
(PM 419) Percentage of criminal cases with individual defendan
ts.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
75
75
75
75
75
75
Percent
Actual
70
80
87
83
85
Additional Information: During the early years of EPA's criminal program, organizational defendants made up approximately 70% of the total defendants charged and
individual defendants made up the remaining 30%. By FY 2016, these figures had greatly changed: 85% of cases had an individual charged and 15% were cases where
only an organizational defendant(s) was charged.
(PM 420) Percentage of criminal cases with charges filed.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
40
40
40
45
45
45
Percent
Actual
44
38
39
38
37
Explanation of Results: EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program has emphasized focusing on more significant cases, which by nature are more complex, lengthy
investigations. In the past four years, results for PM 420 have ranged from 37 to 39 percent. During that same period, three factors contributed to significant changes in
the open case docket: (1) The number of case-carrying agents declined resulting in fewer cases being opened each year; (2) With the implementation ofPM418 (the case
tiering measure), EPA has increased the quality of remaining open cases (going from 44% to 68% in that same period); (3) As a result, the national docket went from over
700 open cases to 475. Due to the increased quality and number of open cases, EPA may be in a better position to meet the target for this measure going forward.
(PM 421) Percentage of conviction rate for criminal defendants.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
85
85
85
85
85
85
Percent
Actual
95
94
95
92
94
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
630
-------
Additional Information: While case outcomes fluctuate based on their specific characteristics, as well as the prosecutorial and sentencing decisions made by the U.S.
Department of Justice and the federal courts, EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program has maintained a historically high conviction rate for defendants charged with
environmental crimes.
GOAL 5: PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENFORCING LAWS AND ASSURING COMPLIANCE
631
-------
Performance: Research
(The shaded boxes indicate that actual results are not yet available, or that a measure lias been discontinued.)
NPM: Office of Research and Development
Performance Measures and Data
(PM AC1) Percentage of
planned research products completed on time by Air, Climate, anc
Energy researc
i program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
92
87
87
100
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program completed 100% of its high-priority research products as planned. Included among these products is
the final publication of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Air Pollution Study. Hie research supports the investigation of health effects of air pollution under the Clean Air Act,
which was funded through a 10-year STAR grant. The results are significant from both clinical practice and policy perspectives, emphasizing long-term prevention of exposure to air pollution as a
strategy to mitigate or delay the onset of cardiovascular disease. This product, as well as other ACE products, provides key data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental
agencies to prevent and reduce emissions of pollutants, assess effects associated with pollutants, and make informed decisions to protect public health.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task. Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use." This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products must be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of its
planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
(PM AC2) Percentage of
planned research outputs delivered to clients for use in taking action on climate change or improving air quality.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
77
83
92
74
85
RESEARCH
632
-------
Performance Measures and Data
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program completed 85% of its research outputs. The two unmet outputs, which will be completed in FY 2017,
are 1) a Health Effects Institute (HEI) report, Multicenter Ozone Study in Elderly Subjects (MOSES), and 2) a final project presentation on Exploring New Air Pollution Health Effects Links in
Existing Datasets. An overview of the HEI report was presented at their annual conference in May, but its final release was delayed until FY 2017 due to the HEI committee decision to delay the
report to adequately address extensive comments that arose during the peer review stage. The delay on the second output was due to challenges in staffing the project, as the lead Project Officer was
pulled into several other activities related to Indoor Air. Among the ACE outputs that were completed as planned in FY 2016 is the Village Green II deployment of 7 new air monitoring stations
located nationally and internationally. The stations are designed and engineered to incorporate sensor technology into park bench structures, which do not require infrastructure support. This output,
as well as other ACE outputs, advances air pollution measurement technology to provide quality-assured data to the public in a real-time, transparent, and accessible way. This project further
supports EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment by furthering public outreach, supplementing the regulatory monitoring network to explore local-scale pollution trends, and
increasing data available for research purposes.
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
(PM CS1) Percentage of planned research
products completed on time by t
le Chemical Safety for Sustainability research program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
100
100
100
100
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research program completed 100% of its high-priority research products as planned. Included in these products
were upgrades to thyroid data in the ToxCast database, including the addition of 774 chemicals that were not previously tested in the thyroid (AUR-TPO) assay. This additional data now allows for a
total of 2,000 chemicals to be used in prioritization in Endocrine Screening testing. Increasing the number of chemicals that can be prioritized for testing is an essential part of understanding high-
priority chemicals in the universe of 10,000+ chemicals relevant to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening program. In addition, CSS produced a series of journal articles that refine and calibrate current
testing methods to ensure the program's data is of high quality. These and other CSS products provide toxicological data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to
prevent and reduce chemical exposure, assess effects associated with pollutants, and make informed decisions to protect public health.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task. Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use." This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products are needed to be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of
its planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
RESEARCH
633
-------
(PM CS2) Percentage of f
environmentally sustaina
>lanned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve their capability to advance the
)le development, use, and assessment of chemicals.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
50
100
100
100
100
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research program completed 100% of its research outputs as planned. Hie outputs included an evaluation
framework for high-throughput toxicity testing schemes to inform specific agency chemical evaluation objectives. The collaborative development of this framework will help EPA lead the larger
discussion of innovations in evaluation/validation schemes for lab research methods, data analysis, and in extrapolating data use across research methods (e.g., in vitro to in vivo). CSS also
developed tools that make it easier for EPA program offices and regional offices to incorporate Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) concepts into their decision-making processes. These and other
CSS research outputs empower individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to better evaluate potential risks from chemical exposure and to make more informed, more timely decisions
about chemicals that impact public health and the environment.
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
(PM HC1
) Percentage of
planned research products completed on time by
the Sustainable and Healthy Communities research program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Actual
100
83
81
100
100
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program completed 100% of its high-priority research products as planned. Included among these
products were an updated EnviroAtlas and a published report on community vulnerability to wildfires. The annual update of the EnviroAtlas included features such as climate change analysis tools
and a toolbox that enhances users' ability to customize their analysis with geo-specilic data. The Wildfire Community Vulnerability Index Report provides a map of vulnerability across the U.S. that
identifies regions that not only have a high risk of lire, but also a high percentage of susceptible populations. This report aims to deliver information that can facilitate targeted health outreach
programs in high-risk communities. These and other SHC products provide key data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to set goals, guide strategic plans,
inform decisions, and measure progress toward their community objectives.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task." Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use. This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products must be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of its
planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
RESEARCH
634
-------
(PM HC2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients, partners, and stakeholders for use in pursuing their sustainability
goals.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
50
100
50
92
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program completed 92% of its research outputs as planned. The development of a systems-level
approach to understanding children's environmental exposure, health and environmental diseases in the natural and built environment was delayed as the scope of the output was expanded in FY
2016 to feature a more comprehensive extramural-intramural integration. An FY 2016 output provides methods to characterize and remediate contaminated ground water, vapor, and sediment sites
to improve community public health. Another output provides communication strategies for educating risk assessors, decision makers, and the public on reducing childhood diseases and promoting
healthy and sustainable community settings. These and other SHC outputs enable ORD and its partners to support EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. This output, as well
as other SHC outputs, provides tools and methods that help protect public health at a community level, communicate community environmental risks, and protect the environment.
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
(PM HS1) Percentage of planned research products completed on time by the Homeland Security research program.
FY 2011 1 FY 2012 \ FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 1 FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) completed 100% of its high-priority research products as planned. Included among these products is the
assessment and evaluation report, Evaluation of Waste Sampling and Decontamination Procedures - Part II. The study determined waste decontamination conditions that would achieve effective or
highly effective decontamination of all material types during a response. This product, as well as other HSRP products, supports EPA's mission by providing the data and tools necessary to prepare
our communities for the threats of disasters including biological, chemical and radiological attacks.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task." Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use. This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products must be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of its
planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
RESEARCH
635
-------
(PM HS2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve their capabilities to respond to
contamination resulting from homeland security events and related disasters.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
78
100
100
100
100
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) completed 100% of its research outputs as planned. Included among these outputs are surface
decontamination efficacy studies for chemical warfare blister agents. Blister agents are contaminants of concern due to their use in terrorist activities and their ability to stay on surfaces for a
prolonged amount of time. These studies investigate the impact of different decontamination products and application procedures, providing decision-makers with practical information on surface
decontamination options during a blister agent response. These and other HSRP outputs continue to support EPA's ability to respond to potential attacks on our water systems and other potential
impacts to human health.
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
(PM RA1) Percentage of
)lanned research products completed on time by the Human Health Risk Assessment research program.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
100
80
45
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program completed 68% of its high priority research products as planned. The HHRA program was
unable to meet 100% of its goal because of a number of a factors, particularly related to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, including challenges in maintaining specialized
expertise and delays due to development and implementation of new systematic review protocols. Key assessment products completed for IRIS included 3 external review draft IRIS assessments
released for public comment (ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE), hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine (RDX), tert-butanol (TBA)). Several Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) key products were
completed as planned including the first draft ISA for Oxides of Sulfur - Health Criteria, the ISA chapter in the Draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) to support the secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) review for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and the ISA chapter in the Draft IRP to support the primary and secondary NAAQS review for particulate matter (PM). Among
other HHRA products completed as planned in FY 2016 was the Exposure Resource for Scenarios Tool (ExpoFIRST) which expands capabilities of regional, state, and local scientists in conducting
site-specific health assessments by allowing users to define and explore an unlimited number of potential exposure scenarios related to a chemical of concern. Another key product was the release of
a new graphic user interface for Categorical Regression (Cat Reg) software to meet the dose-response needs of HHRA projects as well as other national programs. The HHRA program provides key
assessments and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to improve risk analyses, better inform regulatory decisions, and protect human health and the environment.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task." Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use. This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products must be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of its
planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
RESEARCH
636
-------
(PM RA2) Percentage of
)lanned research outputs delivered to clients and partners for use in informing human health decisions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
38
100
67
60
67
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program completed 67% of its research outputs as planned. Two of the three planned outputs were
met. Completed output included release of the final ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria to support the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Nitrogen Dioxide
(N02). The ISA is integral support to the NAAQS program which ensures a clean and healthy environment for the public under the Clean Air Act. HHRA also completed 12 Provisional Peer-
Reviewed Toxicity (PPRTV) assessments this year, which are used by EPA's Superfund program and regional decision makers when making site-specific cleanup decisions. The only unmet output
was completion of 3 final IRIS assessments. Two IRIS assessments were posted as final in FY 2016: Trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) and Ammonia (Noncancer Inhalation). A third IRIS assessment, for
benzo[a]pyrene, was delayed until FY 2017 because the Science Advisory Board peer review report was not received until April 2016 (18-month review).
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
(PM RA6) Number of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used HHRA peer-reviewed assessments (IRIS, PPRTVs, exposure
assessments and other assessments)
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
20
20
20
20
20
Actual
140
100
100
100
Number
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program significantly exceeded its goal for this measure. HHRA peer-reviewed assessments are used
by EPA program and regional offices to inform critical decisions to protect human health. For example, Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity (PPRTV) assessments are used by EPA's Superfund
program and regional decision makers when making site-specific cleanup decisions. These assessments advance science and technology to help improve the health and quality of life in communities
affected by hazardous waste sites and improve industry environmental practices.
Additional Information: The measure calculates the number of agency regulatory decisions for which clients use HHRA peer-reviewed health assessments. The measure is calculated by reviewing
regulatory decisions and Records of Decision (ROD) made by EPA, determining how many quantitative health assessment values were used in these EPA program decisions, and what percentage of
these values had been developed by the HHRA Program. This measure was piloted in FY 2013 and FY 2014 and was based on available information for FY 2010 that is unlikely to be reproducible.
The feasibility of reliably reporting this measure is contingent upon timely completion of the overhaul of the agency ROD database. This restructured database will not be available for analysis until
approximately 2 years after decisions are recorded and will start with FY 2011 RODs. We will evaluate the feasibility of this measure over 3 years with FY 2012 & 2013 data being reported in FY
2015 & FY 2016, respectively.
RESEARCH
637
-------
(PM RA7) Annual milestone progress score for completing draft IRIS healt
th assessments.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
50
50
40
40
40
40
Score
Actual
8
17
30
7
4
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program achieved a score of 4 in drafting Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments.
Challenges in maintaining specialized expertise affected the ability to create the assessment teams required prior to developing initial scoping and preliminary packages. Later development steps
(e.g., assessment components such as systematic review of complex scientific publications) were affected similarly as well as by competing priorities. The scoring method used for this measure was
developed many years ago and does not reflect significant IRIS programmatic changes. Though the target was not met, HHRA did complete public comment/external review drafts of multiple IRIS
health assessments that are critical to EPA's regulatory decisions (e.g., RDX, ETBE, and tert-butanol). IRIS assessments ultimately help characterize chemical pollutants' potential exposure and risk
for specific communities. These assessments provide key data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to improve risk analyses, better inform regulatory decisions,
and protect human health and the environment.
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each
year so that includes such factors as client interest, complexity of science, and level of effort required. Points are scored by multiplying the weight of each assessment by the number of milestones
completed in the assessment process. The program targets represent a steady and timely completion of draft assessments throughout each fiscal year. Near-term targets are based on the large volume
of ongoing assessments that have not been released in draft due to the change in the process for external review. This measure will be assessed as a rolling average with potential annual excess rolled
over to the next target year so as to provide incentives for completion of more milestones. In 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) made several recommendations to EPA for improving the
development of IRIS assessments. EPA has made progress in implementing these recommendations; accordingly, the NRC 2014 report commended EPA's efforts to modernize IRIS. To increase its
transparency, accessibility, and efficiency, EPA is using a new document structure for draft assessments, including an Executive Summary presenting major conclusions, a description of methods
used to develop the assessment, distinct sections on Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis, and more tables and figures to clearly present data. To better support policy and regulatory
decisions for EPA's programs and regions, as well as state agencies, IRIS is reconfirming their priority chemicals and product needs, and aligning those with appropriate allocation of resources. In
addition to Superfund, water, air, and children's health drivers, IRIS has sharpened its focus on the new TSCA law, and has been providing the needed scientific support to meet its expedited
timelines.
(PM RA8
») Annual progress score for finalizing IRIS health assessments.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
20
20
15
15
15
15
Score
Actual
17
8
0
5
5
RESEARCH
638
-------
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Research Program achieved a score of 5 in finalizing Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments.
Trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) and Ammonia (Noncancer Inhalation) were both posted as final assessments in FY 2016. The IRIS TMBs assessment addresses potential noncancer and cancer human
health effects from long-term exposure to three TMB isomers (1,2,4-TMB, 1,3,5-TMB, and 1,2,3-TMB), and is the first IRIS assessment for this chemical. The IRIS assessment for ammonia
addresses the potential noncancer human health effects from long-term inhalation exposure to ammonia, and updates the toxicological information on ammonia posted to the IRIS database in 1991.
Both assessments implement many of the recommendations provided by the National Academy of Sciences and feature a new streamlined document structure that is more transparent with respect to
the methods used and better articulates how decisions were made. Now final, these IRIS assessments can be used by EPA's program and regional offices to inform decisions to protect human
health. Additional modeling issues arose for ethylene oxide (EtO) that delayed it until FY 2017. The benzo(a)pyrene B(a)P assessment was delayed until FY 2017 because SAB peer review report
was not received until April 2016 (an 18-month review).
Additional Information: This measure tracks the program's ability to make progress in finalizing and releasing IRIS assessments. The annual score, tracked cumulatively throughout the year, is
based on the relative weighting of each chemical. Chemicals are weighted using a 3-tier system that includes client interest, complexity of science, and level of effort required. Points are scored by
multiplying the weight of each assessment by the number of milestones completed in the assessment process. The program targets represent a steady and timely completion of final assessments
throughout each fiscal year. Near-term targets are based on the large volume of ongoing assessments that have not been finalized due to the change in the process for external review and completion.
This measure will be assessed as rolling average. In 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) made several recommendations to EPA for improving the development of IRIS assessments. EPA
has made progress in implementing these recommendations; accordingly, the NRC 2014 report commended EPA's efforts to modernize IRIS. To increase its transparency, accessibility, and
efficiency, EPA is using a new document structure for draft assessments, including an Executive Summary presenting major conclusions, a description of methods used to develop the assessment,
distinct sections on Hazard Identification and Dose-Response Analysis, and more tables and figures to clearly present data. To better support policy and regulatory decisions for EPA's programs and
regions, as well as state agencies, IRIS is reconfirming their priority chemicals and product needs, and aligning those with appropriate allocation of resources. In addition to Superfund, water, air,
and children's health drivers, IRIS has sharpened its focus on the new TSCA law, and has been providing the needed scientific support to meet its expedited timelines.
(PM SW
) Percentage of
planned research products comp
eted on time by
he Safe and Sus
ainable Water Resources research program
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
70
90
100
100
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research program completed 100% of its planned high priority products. Among these products, under
research on Harmful Algal Blooms, SSWR developed and released the Water Quality Assessment Tool (WQAT) in conjunction with NASA Stennis Space Center. WQAT is a software tool that
facilitates and simplifies the extraction and analysis of satellite data. Satellite data are important because water quality management in most aquatic ecosystems is hindered by a lack of data.
WQAT's users are the Office of Water, Regions, states, tribes, including drinking water treatment facilities, state health departments, recreational water managers, and state water quality managers.
WQAT, as well as other SSWR products, provide the data and tools needed by individuals, communities, and governmental agencies to promote water conservation, safeguard our water resources
from ongoing threats, and protect public health.
Additional Information: A research product is "a deliverable that results from a specific research project or task." Research products may require translation or synthesis before integration into an
output ready for partner use. This secondary performance measure tracks the timely completion of research products. Working with its partners, each program develops a list of planned research
products and their associated outputs. The list reflects high priority products the program plans to complete by the end of each fiscal year. The estimated completion date is based on when the output
is needed for partner use and when the research products are needed to be transformed into the output. The actual product completion date is self-reported. The program strives to complete 100% of
its planned products each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
RESEARCH
639
-------
(PM SW2) Percentage of planned research outputs delivered to clients and partners to improve the Agency's capability to ensure clean and
adequate supplies of water that support human well-being and resilient aquatic ecosystems.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
100
100
100
100
100
100
Actual
50
100
100
100
100
Percent
Explanation of Results: In FY 2016, EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research program completed 100% of its planned outputs. The Green Infrastructure Models and Tools
toolkit is a webpage of five EPA green infrastructure (GI) models and tools, along with communication material, that can provide stakeholders with relevant and timely information so they can make
sound decisions regarding options for implementation of GI practices. Hie purpose of the toolkit is to provide decision makers with quick and relevant information about available models and tools
for use in their communities. The toolkit can be used as a teaching tool and as a reference resource by planners and developers when making GI implementation decisions. The toolkit can be used for
low impact development design competitions, and it can be used by EPA Regions to train their staff, and for outreach to states. The GI models, as well as other SSWR research, provides the science
and innovative technologies that the agency and the nation need to maintain drinking water resources and systems, as well as to protect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's
waters.
Additional Information: Research outputs result from the translation or synthesis of one or more research products into the format compatible with the partner's decision needs. "Delivery of a
research output" means that the output is transferred to the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) research partner ready for the intended partner use. EPA identifies and describes the
planned outputs in the program's Research Program Strategic Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the
process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the
ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility.
RESEARCH
640
-------
Performance: Enabling and Support Programs
(The shaded boxes indicate that actual results are not yet available, or that a measure lias been discontinued.)
NPM: Office of Administration and Resources Management
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 009) No reduction in percentage of certified acquisition staff (1
L102).
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
335 /80
323 / 80
85
85
85
85
Number/
Percent
Actual
323/85
285/85
93
95
93
Explanation of Results: As of October 1, 2016, there were 260 acquisition (1102) staff on board, of which 241 (93%) were certified. Certification ensures that acquisition
staff are properly trained and qualified.
(PM 010) Reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Scopes 1 & 2 emissions below 20
08 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
0.4
6.4
12.2
16.3
16.3
20.1
23.0
Percent
Actual
59
54.1
57.4
59.5
63
Data Avail
2017
Additional Information: SeeEPA'sFY 2016 Strategic Sustainabilitv Performance Plan uaae 4 at httDs://www.eDa.aov/sites/Droduction/files/2016-
09/documents/eDa 2016 strategic sustainabilitv performance plan.pdf.
(PM 098) Reduction in energy consumption below 20*
)3 baseline.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
18
21
24
27
27
32.5
35
Percent
Actual
18.1
23.7
25.6
28.9
32.7
Data Avail
2017
Additional Information: SeeEPA'sFY 2016 Strategic Sustainabilitv Performance Plan case 4 at https://www.eDa.sov/sites/Droduction/files/2016-
09/documents/epa 2016 strategic sustainabilitv performance plan.pdf.
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
641
-------
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 052) Number of major EPA enviro
receipt, processing, and quality checkin
nmental systems that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster
s, of data.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
60
67
75
80
77
80
90
Systems
Actual
64
68
73
89
107
125
Additional Information: Hie Central Data Exchange (CDX) program began in FY 2001 to enable states, tribes and others to send environmental data to EPA through a
centralized electronic process. The CDX program estimates its results as the net of new systems using CDX services (increase) and retirement of older systems that are
being phased out (decrease). As a result, these results may increase or decrease in subsequent years. The unit of measure "system" is defined as the number of data
flows/exchanges that occur through CDX by EPA program offices, states and tribes. There are 14 Vehicle and Engine Certification and Compliance (VERIFY) data
flows/exchanges that occur in CDX. Each serves a different need and is counted individually. Because CDX is used for these 14 unique needs, separate systems have not
been developed to fulfill this need; rather, the one CDX solution serves them all.
(PM 053) States, tribes and territories will be able to exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time, using
standards and automated data-quality checking.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
65
80
95
98
103
140
140
Users
Actual
72
92
97
102
104
140
Additional Information: Users are defined for this measure as the total number of physical and virtual nodes in production and test.
(PM 999) Total number of active unique users from states, tribes, laboratories, regulated facilities and other entities that
electronically report environmental data to EPA through CDX.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
Baseline Year
58,000
70,000
75,000
84,000
90,000
100,000
Users
Actual
56,200
65,238
79,818
96,000
85,894
116,636
Additional Information: To calculate unique users of the CDX system, CDX takes all users whose accounts have been active in the last two years and eliminates duplicate
registrations under the same email address. Because many EPA regulations require periodic reporting, i.e., once every two, three or five years, a two-year span was
utilized to capture the majority of users without overstating their "active" status.
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
642
-------
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 35A) Environmental and business actions taken
'or improved performance or risk reduction.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
334
334
307
248
268
274
274
Actions
Actual
315
216
215
324
296
285
Additional Information: This measure captures implemented corrective actions taken by the agency based on Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommendations to
improve EPA programs and/or processes. Results are typically from prior years and may fluctuate depending on the agency's ability to complete agreed-upon corrective
actions. The target for this measure is developed by taking the actual performance for two or three fiscal years and adjusted to reflect any significant changes in priorities.
(PM 35B) Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
903
903
786
687
967
1,094
1,094
Recommen
dations
Actual
2,011
1,242
1,003
944
1,110
1,127
Additional Information: This measure captures the number of Office of the Inspector General (OIG) outputs (recommendations for improvement, outreach activities to
plan and promote OIG work, congressional testimonies delivered, best practices identified, and risks identified). One key activity during an OIG audit/evaluation is
identifying risks to EPA operations and programs. Risk identification is based on federal standards for internal control. Internal control is a process for assuring
achievement of an organization's objectives in operational effectiveness and efficiency, reliable reporting, and compliance with laws, regulations and policies. Ultimately
effective internal controls assure that operations run efficiently and effectively. The target reflects the average of actual performance for two or three fiscal years, adjusted
to reflect any significant changes in priorities.
(PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
120
110
125
132
220
220
220
Percent
Actual
151
743
248
734
1,656
2,098
Explanation of Results: A significant portion ($886 million) of FY 2016 return on investment came from non-EPA unliquidated funds (other federal funds) identified by
EPA-OIG audit work.
Additional Information: Results under this measure identify the potential return on investment and do not include actual recoveries. The Office of the Inspector General's
(OIG's) role is to question costs and identify cost efficiencies and funds put to better use (recommended efficiencies). Hie target reflects the average of actual performance
for two or three fiscal years, adjusted to reflect any significant changes in priorities. In FY 2012 and FY 2014 the OIG issued a single report with usually high
recommended efficiencies (FY 2012-S372M; FY 2014-S230M). These were excluded from the average calculations given that reports with massive Return on Investment
(ROI) do not materialize every year.
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
643
-------
Performance Measures and Data
(PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
Unit
Target
80
85
90
125
175
145
145
Actions
Actual
160
152
256
213
304
181
Additional Information: This measure captures criminal, civil, and administrative actions as a result of Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations on fraud,
waste and abuse. To a large extent, results are influenced by factors outside the control of OIG (judges, juries, etc.).
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
644
-------
Cross-Agency Strategies
The table below summarizes progress that the Environmental Protection Agency has achieved
under each of the four cross-agency strategies established in the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic
Plan.
Working Toward a Sustainable Future - Advance sustainable environmental outcomes and
optimize economic and social outcomes through agency decisions and actions, which include
expanding the conversation on environmentalism and engaging a broad range of stakeholders.
EPA made steady progress promoting sustainability, working across the agency and with
federal and non-federal partners to continue education and engagement.
In FY 2016, EPA:
• Hosted a workshop under the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency which brought
public and private stakeholders together to share best practices and identify
opportunities to use life cycle thinking to achieve sustainable materials management
across supply chains.
• Hosted the first Food Recovery Summit to reduce food loss and waste, and held a
Making a Sustainable Difference in Communities Event for sustainability and
communities workgroups to meet face-to-face, collaborate, and break down silos.
• Prepared and released 32 videos, including 15 external videos, which garnered more
than 37,000 views.
• Partnered with the Department of State's Greening Council to focus on innovative
water technologies to advance greening efforts at 18,000 embassies and buildings
worldwide.
Working to Make a Visible Difference in Communities - Align community-based activities
to provide seamless assistance to communities, both urban and rural, while maximizing
efficiency and results. Expand support of community efforts to build healthy, sustainable,
green neighborhoods and reduce and prevent harmful exposures and health risks to children
and underserved, overburdened communities.
EPA's Communities Team made progress in four main areas.
In the area of target communities:
• EPA assisted 50 focus communities with implementing work plans by leveraging
resources across the agency and with external partners.
• EPA allocated_$1.3 million to 22 communities in 18 states to help protect and restore
urban waters and to support community revitalization and other local priorities.
• EPA also awarded more than $7 million to 85 school bus fleets in 35 states to replace
or retrofit 400 older diesel school buses and reduce pollutants linked to asthma and
lung damage.
In the area of empowering communities:
• The agency released an updated EJSCREEN tool to identify potential hazards in
environmental justice communities.
645
-------
Through the Community Resources Network:
• EPA conducted monthly webinars and other outreach activities to support its agency-
wide community of practice, drawing more than 150 participants.
• The agency also compiled best practices for coordinating and leveraging community-
based work for implementation in FY 2017.
Finally, EPA continued to employ a wide range of communication tools to tell communities'
stories. Challenges included embedding communities work into the existing institutional
structures within the agency.
Launching a New Era of State, Tribal, Local, and International Partnerships - Strengthen
partnerships with states, tribes, local governments, and the global community that are central
to the success of the national environmental protection program through consultation,
collaboration, and shared accountability. Modernize the EPA-state relationship, including
revitalizing the National Environmental Performance Partnership System and jointly pursuing
E-Enterprise, a transformative approach to make environmental information and data more
accessible, efficient, and evidence-based through advances in monitoring, reporting, and
information technology.
EPA continued to strengthen its partnerships with states, tribes, local governments, and the
global community in FY 2016 to protect the environment and modernize relationships. The
Partnerships Team is making progress toward the vision set forth in the FY 2014-2018 EPA
Strategic Plan.
• EPA, working jointly with states and tribes, initiated projects and portal functionalities
designed to ease regulatory burden. The E-Enterprise program is on pace to reduce the
regulatory burden by nearly 1 million hours by the end of FY 2016, with over 1 million
hours per year savings expected upon full adoption of services (FY 2016-2017 APG).
• EPA published a final rule to significantly streamline the process for tribes to obtain
authority to develop their own water quality standards, identify impaired waters on
their reservations, and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads.
• By providing key support and assisting in drafting implementation guidance, EPA
advanced implementation of the Minamata Convention to reduce mercury pollution.
• EPA successfully achieved agreement by the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee on guidances for controlling air emissions of mercury from coal
combustion, cement production, metals production, and waste incineration and for
addressing mercury use in artisanal gold mining.
• A total of 316 EPA-Tribal Environmental Plans (ETEPs) are in place nationwide for 62
percent of tribes receiving Indian General Assistance Program grants.
Challenges under this cross-agency strategy included ensuring robust and inclusive discussions
among NPMs, Regional Division Directors, states and tribes to consider the most promising
potential E-Enterprise projects.
Embracing EPA as a High Performing Organization (HPO) - Maintain and attract EPA's
diverse and engaged workforce of the future with a more collaborative work environment.
Modernize our business practices, including through E-Enterprise, and take advantage of new
646
-------
tools and technologies. Improve the way we work as a high-performing Agency by ensuring
we add value in every transaction with our workforce, our co-regulators, our partners,
industry, and the people we serve.
In FY 2016, EPA continued to improve as a high performing organization by focusing on
developing employees and a supportive work environment and on streamlining business
processes.
• To improve support for EPA's first-line supervisors, the agency made improvements in
labor and employee relations processes and programs, including establishment of anti-
harassment and telework training.
• Additionally, EPA convened a first-line supervisors advisory group, with
representatives from all program and regional offices, to engage their expertise in
development of management solutions, which in FY 2016 included participation in
Technical User Groups to test enhancements to the PeoplePlus system and
development of options for a permanent continuing education program for supervisors.
• EPA launched Talent Hub, a SharePoint-based one-stop shop for employee
development opportunities.
• The agency continued work to "reduce the footprint," including the release of
approximately 141,000 sq. ft. of office space in Potomac Yard, saving approximately
$5 million annually in rent costs.
• EPA also established a Lean Action Board and Lean Project Support Team to work on
10 and 41 projects respectively.
• The agency also held Technology User Groups (TUGs) to evaluate EPA's time and
attendance, payroll, and contracting systems. EPA is continuing efforts to implement
Lotus Notes migration and has completed Lotus Notes inventory analysis, identifying
databases for deletion or archiving.
• The agency continued to accrue savings across its procurement program through
implementation of its category management/strategic sourcing program. Through FY
2016, EPA has saved approximately $8 million dollars through the restructuring of
cross-agency commodities and contracts.
Among the challenges the agency faced in implementing its HPO strategy were delays to the
second Senior Executive Service (SES) candidate development program to align timeline with
EPA's partner, the U.S. Department of the Interior. Implementation is scheduled to begin in
early 2017. In addition, contract issues delayed Lotus Notes Migration.
647
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 650
Environmental Programs 650
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 675
Enabling Support Programs 675
Major Management Challenges 682
EPA User Fee Program 694
Working Capital Fund 697
Acronyms For Statutory Authority 699
FY 2018 STAG Categorical Program Grants 705
Program Projects By Program Area 716
Eliminated/Discontinued Programs 726
Expected Benefits Of E-Government Initiatives 733
FY 2018 Administrator's Priorities 738
Proposed FY 2018 Administrative Provisions 739
Attorney Fee And Cost Payments Obligated In FY 2016 Under Equal Access For Justice
Act (EAJA) 741
Fiscal Year 2018: Consolidations, Realignments, Or Other Transfers Of Resources 743
EPA Budget By National Program Manager And Major Office 744
IG's Comments On The FY 2018 President's Budget 748
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Worksheet For By 2018 750
648
-------
649
-------
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
Environmental Programs
Air and Radiation Programs
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation
The EPA has cooperated with other federal, state, Tribal, and local agencies to achieve goals
related to ground level ozone and particulate matter (PM) and to ensure the actions of other
agencies do not interfere with state plans for attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA has worked closely with the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Department of Defense (DOD) on issues
such as prescribed burning at silviculture and agricultural operations. The EPA, the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) have worked with state and local
agencies to integrate transportation and air quality plans, reduce traffic congestion, and promote
livable communities.
To improve our understanding of environmental issues related to the agricultural sector, the EPA
has worked closely with the USDA and others to reduce emissions from agricultural operations
and improve air quality while supporting a sustainable agricultural sector. Because the EPA does
not have adequate emissions estimates for this sector, the agency has needed to develop an
understanding of emissions profiles and establish monitoring and measurement protocols,
technology transfer, and a research agenda. The agency encouraged partnerships between the EPA,
USDA, and their established partners and utilized existing USDA infrastructure (e.g., Extension
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Services, land grant colleges and universities, Farm Bill
programs, etc.). Additionally, the agency will actively engage and reach out to the agriculture
community.
Regional Haze
The EPA has worked with the DOI, National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service in
implementing its regional haze program and operating the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring network. The operation and analysis of
data produced by this air monitoring system is an example of the close coordination of efforts
between the EPA and state and Tribal governments. The EPA also has consulted with the DOI's
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the
potential impact of federally permitted actions on endangered species.
Air Quality Assessment, Modeling, and Forecasting
For pollution assessments and transport, the EPA has worked with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) on technology transfer using satellite imagery. The EPA has
worked to further distribute NASA satellite products and NOAA air quality forecast products to
states, local agencies, and tribes to provide a better understanding of air quality on a day-to-day
basis and to assist with air quality forecasting. The EPA has worked with NASA to develop a
650
-------
better understanding of PM formation using satellite data. The EPA has worked with the
Department of the Army on advancing emission measurement technology and with NOAA for
meteorological support for our modeling and monitoring efforts. The EPA has collected real-time
ozone and particulate matter (PM) measurements from state and local agencies, which are used by
both NOAA and the EPA to improve and verify Air Quality Forecast models. The EPA's AIRNow
program (the national real-time Air Quality Index reporting and forecasting system) has worked
with the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate NOAA air quality forecast guidance with
state and local agencies for air quality forecasting efforts and to render the NOAA model output
in the EPA Air Quality Index (AQI), which helps people determine appropriate air quality
protective behaviors. In wildfire situations, the EPA and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have
worked closely with states to deploy monitors and report monitoring information and other
conditions on AIRNow. The EPA also has worked with USFS by providing new science on the
impacts of smoke on health to inform smoke management practices and intervention strategies to
reduce health impacts. The AIRNow program also has collaborated with the NPS and the USFS
in receiving air quality monitoring observations, in addition to observations from over 130 state,
local, and Tribal air agencies. AIRNow also collaborates with NASA in a project to incorporate
satellite data with air quality observations.
The EPA, USD A, and the DOI established a collaborative framework to address issues pertaining
to wildland fire and air quality. The agreement recognizes the key roles of each agency, as well as
opportunities for collaboration. For example, the partnership explains that the agencies seek to
reduce the impact of emissions from wildfires, especially catastrophic wildfires, and the impact of
those emissions on air quality. In addition, the partnership highlights opportunities for enhancing
coordination among the agencies through information sharing and consultation, collaboration on
tools and information resources, and working together to collaborate with state and other partners,
among other goals.
Mobile Sources
The EPA has worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the
coordinated national program establishing standards to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG
emissions for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and later. Specifically, the EPA, in
coordination with Department of Transportation's fuel economy and fuel consumption standards
programs, implement vehicle and commercial truck greenhouse gas standards with a focus on
industry compliance to ensure the standards are realized.
In the maritime sector, the EPA has collaborated with the Coast Guard (USCG) and other nations,
such as Mexico and Canada. In the aviation area, the EPA has collaborated with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). To address criteria pollutant emissions (such as nitrogen oxide
(NOx) and PM) from marine and aircraft sources, the EPA has worked collaboratively with the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
as well as with other federal agencies, such as USCG and the FAA. The EPA also has collaborated
with the USCG in the implementation of Emission Control Area (ECA) around the United States,
and with Mexico and Canada in the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to evaluate the
benefits of establishing a Mexican ECA.
651
-------
To better understand the sources and causes of mobile source pollution, the EPA has worked with
the DOE and DOT to fund applied research projects including transportation modeling projects.
The EPA also has worked closely with DOE on refinery cost modeling analyses and the
development of clean fuel programs. The EPA also has coordinated with DOE's EIA regarding
fuel supply during emergency situations. For mobile sources program outreach, the agency has
participated in a collaborative effort with DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to educate the public about the impacts of transportation
choices on traffic congestion, air quality, and human health. This community-based public
education initiative also includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The EPA also has worked
with FHWA to develop and deliver training on modeling emissions from cars and trucks. The EPA
also has worked with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), on air emission
issues. Other programs targeted to reduce air toxics from mobile sources are coordinated with
DOT. These partnerships can involve policy assessments and toxic emission reduction strategies
in different regions of the country. The EPA has worked with DOE, DOT, and other agencies, as
needed, on the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard. The EPA also has worked with other
agencies on biofuel topics through the Biomass Research and Development Institute.
To develop air pollutant emission factors and emission estimation algorithms for aircraft, ground
equipment, and military vehicles, the EPA has partnered with the DOD. This partnership provides
for the joint undertaking of air-monitoring/emission factor research and regulatory
implementation.
Air Toxics
The EPA has worked closely with other health agencies such as the CDC, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) on health risk characterization for both toxic and criteria air pollutants. The EPA
also has contributed air quality data to the CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking Program,
which is made publicly available and used by state and local public health agencies.
Addressing Transboundary Air Pollution
In developing regional and international air quality programs and projects, and in working on
regional agreements, the EPA has worked with the Department of State (DOS), NOAA, NASA,
DOE, USD A, USAID, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as well as with regional
organizations. In addition, the EPA has partnered with other organizations worldwide, including
the United Nations Environment Programme, the European Union, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, the Global Air Pollution Forum, and
our air quality partners in several countries, including Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and Japan.
The EPA, working closely with the DOS, helped advance a resolution calling for greater
international action to improve air quality through the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP). The EPA will continue to strengthen the links between environment and public health
652
-------
officials and provide technical assistance through UNEP to facilitate the development of air quality
management strategies to other major emitters and/or to key regional or sub-regional groupings of
countries.
Stratospheric Ozone
The EPA has worked very closely with the DOS and other federal agencies in international
negotiations among Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and in developing the implementing regulations. The environmental goal of the Montreal Protocol
is to protect the ozone layer and the ozone depleting substances (ODS) it controls also are
significant greenhouse gases. The EPA has worked on several multinational environmental
agreements including negotiating the most recent amendment to the Montreal Protocol, working
closely with the Department of State and other federal agencies, including OMB, Office of Science
Technology and Policy, Council on Environmental Quality, USDA, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), Department of Commerce, NOAA, and NASA.
The EPA has worked with other agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade
Representative and the Department of Commerce, to analyze potential trade implications in
stratospheric protection regulations that affect imports and exports. The EPA has coordinated
efforts with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Department of Treasury, and other agencies to curb the illegal importation of ozone-depleting
substances (ODS). Illegal import of ODS has the potential to prevent the United States from
meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol to restore the ozone layer.
The EPA has continued discussions with DOD, GSA, and NASA to assist in the effective transition
from ODS and high-global warming potential (GWP) substitutes to a suite of substitutes with
lower GWPs.
The EPA has worked with USDA and the DOS to facilitate research, development, and adoption
of alternatives to methyl bromide. The EPA also has consulted with USDA on domestic methyl
bromide needs.
The EPA has coordinated with NASA and NOAA to monitor the state of the stratospheric ozone
layer and to collect, analyze, and disseminate UV data.
The EPA has coordinated with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that proposed
rules are developed in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Radiation and Radiation Preparedness and Response
The EPA has worked primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and the
DHS on multiple radiation related issues. The EPA has ongoing planning and guidance discussions
with DHS on general emergency response activities, including exercises responding to nuclear
related incidents. As the regulator of DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, the EPA
is charged with coordinating oversight activities with DOE to ensure the facility is operating in
compliance with EPA regulations. The EPA is a member of the Interagency Radiation Source
653
-------
Protection and Security Task Force, established in the Energy Policy Act, to improve the security
of domestic radioactive sources. The EPA also is a working member of the interagency Nuclear
Government Coordinating Council (NGCC), which coordinates across government and the private
sector on issues related to security, communications, and emergency management within the
nuclear sector.
For emergency preparedness purposes, the EPA has coordinated closely with other federal
agencies through the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee and the
Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health which provides federal scientific advice and
recommendations to state and local decision makers such as governors and mayors during a
radiological emergency. The EPA has participated in planning and implementing table-top and
field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the NRC, DOE, DOD, HHS,
and DHS.
The EPA is a charter member and co-chairs the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
Standards (ISCORS) which was created at the direction of Congress. Through quarterly meetings
and the activities of its six subcommittees, member agencies are kept informed of cross-cutting
issues related to radiation protection, radioactive waste management, and emergency preparedness
and response. ISCORS also helps coordinate U.S. responses to radiation related issues
internationally.
During radiological emergencies, the EPA has worked with expert members of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Additionally, the EPA would work with OECD's Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA) on two committees, the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee
(RWMC) and the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) as necessary
during the response and remediation including those incidents involving significant waste issues.
Through participation on the CRPPH and its working groups, the EPA has been successful in
bringing a U.S. perspective to international radiation protection policy and benefits from having
other countries' perspectives.
Research
The EPA has continued to strengthen interactions with other agencies, including NOAA, DOE,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Federal Highway
Administration, and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies to approach changes in air
pollution sustainably. For example, the EPA has worked with NOAA and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) to relate satellite-based air quality data to ambient monitoring.
In accordance with the Global Change Research Act, the EPA has coordinated with the 12 other
federal agencies that are members of the U.S. Global Change Research Program to meet the Act's
requirements to develop and publish a quadrennial assessment of the current and potential future
impacts of global change.
654
-------
Water Programs
Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Water Infrastructure Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
The EPA has coordinated with other federal agencies, primarily the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and
Department of Defense (DOD), on biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants of high
concern, and how to detect and respond to their presence in drinking water and wastewater
systems. A close linkage with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Intelligence Analysis
Directorate in DHS will be continued. The agency is strengthening its working relationships with
the Water Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Foundation, and other research
institutions to increase our knowledge on technologies to detect contaminants, monitoring
protocols and techniques, and treatment effectiveness.
The EPA has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to refine coordination processes among federal partners engaged in
providing emergency response support to the water sector. These efforts will include refining
existing standard operating procedures, participating in cross-agency training opportunities, and
planning multi-stakeholder water sector emergency response exercises. The EPA will be
determining how ACE, FEMA, and the EPA are to clarify their roles and responsibilities under
the National Disaster Recovery Framework. In addition, the EPA has continued to work with
FEMA and the ACE, as well as other agencies, on the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
Task Force with regard to water resources and floodplain management.
Executive Order 13636 on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity directs the EPA to
coordinate with DHS and the Department of Commerce in developing implementation guidance
on cybersecurity practices for water systems. The EPA intends to harness the extensive
cybersecurity capabilities of DHS in carrying out its responsibilities under this mandate.
Geologic Sequestration
The EPA has coordinated with federal agencies to ensure safe and effective implementation of
regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water during geologic sequestration
activities, as well as plan and obtain research-related data and coordinate regulatory activities.
Specifically, the EPA has coordinated with the Department of Energy, the Department of the
Interior's Geological Survey, and the Internal Revenue Service to ensure that Safe Drinking Water
Act regulations for geologic sequestration sites are appropriately coordinated with efforts to deploy
projects, map geologic sequestration capacity, provide tax incentives for CO2 sequestration, and
manage the movement of CO2 from capture facilities to geologic sequestration sites.
Collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey
The EPA and U.S. Geological Survey have established an Interagency Agreement to coordinate
activities and information exchange in the areas of unregulated contaminants occurrence, the
environmental relationships affecting contaminant occurrence, protection area delineation
methodology, and analytical methods. This collaborative effort has improved the quality of
655
-------
information to support risk management decision-making at all levels of government, generated
valuable new data, and eliminated potential redundancies.
Sustainable Rural Drinking and Wastewater Systems
The EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture have agreed to work together to increase the
sustainability of rural drinking water and wastewater systems to ensure the protection of public
health, water quality, and sustainable communities. The two agencies have worked to facilitate
coordinated funding for infrastructure projects that aid in the compliance of national drinking water
and clean water regulations. In FY 2018, the EPA will continue to collaborate with the USD A to
provide assistance to small rural drinking water systems that struggle to comply with drinking
water regulations and/or lack an adequate governance structure to keep the system operating
sustainably.
National Water Sector Workforce Development: Department of Veterans Affairs
The EPA and the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) Service jointly promoted activities that will help advance and improve
employment opportunities for Veterans with disabilities while supporting the development of a
trained and competent workforce for the Water Sector. Key objectives of this collaborative effort
are to: 1) educate those involved with transitioning veterans to civilian careers about the water and
wastewater industries; 2) promote Water Sector career opportunities to veterans; 3) educate
utilities about Veterans Affairs programs and connect them with veterans; and 4) promote state
program collaboration (particularly operator certification programs) with local Veterans Affairs
counselors.
Tribal Access Coordination
The EPA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Indian Health Service, and the Department of
the Interior have worked together to maintain and improve coordination in delivering water and
wastewater infrastructure services and financial assistance to American Indian communities. The
agencies work together to increase the number of American Indian homes provided access to safe
drinking water.
Source Water Protection and Harmful Algal Blooms
The EPA has coordinated with other federal agencies, including with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forest Service) and the U.S. Geological
Survey, to support federal, state, and local implementation of source water protection actions. In
addition, the EPA has coordinated with the Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) of
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to integrate their data on national and
defense-critical infrastructure into source water protection analyses such as identifying potential
contributors to harmful algal blooms (HABs) and chemical spill response. To further combat
harmful algal blooms, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments
Act of 2014 (HABHRCA 2014, P.L. 113-124) emphasizes the mandate to advance the scientific
understanding and ability to detect, predict, control, mitigate, and respond to harmful algal blooms
656
-------
and hypoxia. This legislation established the Interagency Working Group on HABHRCA (IWG-
HABHRCA). It tasked the group with coordinating and convening Federal agencies to discuss
HAB and hypoxia events in the United States, and to develop action plans, reports, and assessments
of these situations. The Working Group is co-chaired by the EPA and NOAA and also includes
the: Food and Drug Administration; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management; U.S. Navy; National Science Foundation; U.S. Geological Survey; and National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Data Availability, Outreach, and Technical Assistance
The EPA has coordinated with U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, Rural Utilities Service), Centers for Disease Control, Department of
Transportation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior
(National Park Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Management, and Reclamation),
Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), and the Tennessee Valley
Authority to make data more available to states and the public. In addition, the EPA has
collaborated with other federal agencies, states, and industry associations to establish a National
Ground Water Monitoring Network with States to provide a fuller set of ground water data
nationally through a single portal. Data helps to address national and regional issues related to
water use, adaptation, and food and energy production.
Collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration
The EPA and Food and Drug Administration are updating a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), first established in 1978, to coordinate the authorities and programs of the two agencies
with respect to oversight of drinking water on interstate conveyance carriers (e.g., aircraft, trains).
The updates to the MOU are in response to the EPA's Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR)
promulgated on October 19, 2009. Coordination will include sharing information on sample results
indicating microbial contamination, inspections and enforcement actions; working together when
water quality events occur that could impact the quality of water boarded onto aircraft; and other
activities to ensure that a safe and reliable supply of drinking water is provided to passengers and
crew. In addition, EPA scientists are collaborating with FDA scientists to evaluate the health
effects of perchlorate exposure.
Collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
The EPA and CDC meet quarterly to discuss cross-cutting issues related to drinking water
contaminants and potential public health concerns.
Collaboration with Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The EPA's Ground Water and Drinking Water Program has collaborated with HUD to develop
strategies to decrease drinking water lead exposure in homes. The partnership would share
information, leverage funding, and review processes to facilitate better informed decisions and
coordinate investments.
657
-------
Watersheds
Protecting and restoring watersheds will depend largely on the direct involvement of many federal
agencies, including the EPA, as well as state, Tribal, and local governments who manage the
multitude of programs necessary to address water quality on a watershed basis. Federal agency
involvement will include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Forest Service Agency, and Agriculture Research Service), Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Transportation, and Department of Defense (Navy and US Army
Corps of Engineers). At the state level, agencies involved in watershed management typically
include departments of natural resources or the environment, public health agencies, and forestry
and recreation agencies. Locally, numerous agencies are involved, including regional planning
entities such as councils of governments, as well as local departments of environment, health, and
recreation who frequently have strong interests in watershed projects.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA and
the authorized states have developed relationships with various federal agencies to implement
pollution controls for point sources. The EPA has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service on consultation for protection of endangered species.
The EPA has worked with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on National Historic
Preservation Act implementation. The EPA and the states rely on monitoring data from the U.S.
Geological Survey to help inform pollution control decisions. The agency also has worked closely
with the Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that
regulatory programs are fair and reasonable. The agency has coordinated with NOAA on efforts
to ensure that NPDES programs support coastal and national estuary efforts and with the
Department of the Interior on mining issues. The agency also has coordinated with the Federal
Highway Administration to reduce the impacts of stormwater from roads.
Community Water Priorities/Urban Waters
In response to stakeholder feedback, the EPA has worked with thirteen federal agencies, since
2010, to implement the Urban Waters Federal Partnership. Agencies include:
• Department of the Interior
• Department of Agriculture
• Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• Department of Commerce - Economic Development Administration
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Department of Health and Human Services - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
658
-------
• Department of Health and Human Services - National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
• Corporation for National and Community Service
• Department of Education
• Department of Energy
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
This partnership seeks to help communities transform overlooked urban waters into treasured
centerpieces and drivers of urban revival.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The EPA's State Revolving Fund program has worked with, as appropriate, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to foster collaboration
on jointly funded infrastructure projects. In many states, coordination committees have been
established with representatives from the three programs.
In implementation of the Indian set-aside grant program under Title VI of the Clean Water Act,
the EPA has worked closely with the Indian Health Service to administer grant funds to the various
Indian tribes, including determination of the priority ranking system for the various wastewater
needs in Indian Country. The EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development have
partnered to provide coordinated financial and technical assistance to tribes.
Federal Agency Partnerships on Impaired Waters Restoration Planning
The federal government owns about 30 percent of the land in the United States and administers
over 90 percent of these public lands through four agencies: Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In managing these extensive
public lands, federal agencies have a substantial influence on the protection and restoration of
many waters of the United States. Land management agencies' focus on water issues has increased
significantly, with the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
all initiating new water quality and watershed protection efforts. The EPA has been conducting
joint national assessments with these agencies to enhance watershed protection and quantify
restoration needs on federal lands. The EPA's joint national assessments of Fish and Wildlife
Service and Forest Service properties already have documented the extent and type of impaired
waters within and near these agencies' lands, developed GIS databases, reported national summary
statistics, and developed interactive reference products (on any scale, local to national), accessible
to staff throughout the agencies. The Forest Service has worked with the EPA on designating the
third national update of the co-occurrence of impaired waters and National Forest lands. These
assessments already have influenced the agencies in positive ways. The Forest Service and the
Fish and Wildlife Service have performance measures that involve impaired waters. The Forest
Service used their national assessment data to institute improvements in a national monitoring and
Best Management Practices training program as well as develop a watershed condition framework
for proactively implementing restoration on priority National Forest and Grassland watersheds.
Also, under a Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and Forest Service, numerous aquatic
restoration projects are being carried out. The Fish and Wildlife Service is using their national
659
-------
assessment data to inform agency planning on water conservation, quality, and quantity monitoring
and management in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and also is using the assessment in
National Fish Hatcheries System planning and their Contaminants Program. The EPA assessments
and datasets are making significant contributions to the government-wide National Fish Habitat
Action Partnership national assessment of fish habitat condition and the restoration and protection
efforts of 17 regional Fish Habitat Partnerships.
Monitoring and Assessment of Nation's Waters
The EPA has worked with federal, state, and Tribal partners to strengthen water monitoring
programs to support a range of management needs and to develop tools to improve how we manage
and share water data and report environmental results. The EPA's Monitoring and Assessment
Partnership is a forum for the EPA, states, tribes, and interstate organizations to collaborate on key
program directions for assessing the condition of the nation's waters in a nationally consistent and
representative manner. The EPA is co-chair, along with U.S. Geological Survey, of the National
Water Quality Monitoring Council, a national forum for scientific discussion of strategies and
technologies to improve water quality monitoring and data sharing. The council membership
includes other federal agencies, state and Tribal agencies, non-governmental organizations,
academic institutions, and the private sector.
Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
developed and are now operating the national Water Data Portal, a web portal serving data from
the USGS and the EPA ambient water quality data warehouses in a common format through the
internet. The EPA has an Interagency Agreement with the USGS for the development of NHDPlus
version 2, which is complete for the lower 48 states. The EPA also has collaborated with USGS
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service on implementation,
analysis, and/or on analysis and interpretation of the results of the National Aquatic Resource
Surveys.
Wetlands
The EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resource Conservation Service and U.S. Forest Service, and Federal Highway Administration
have coordinated on a range of wetlands activities. These activities include: studying and reporting
on wetlands trends in the United States, diagnosing causes of coastal wetland loss, statistically
surveying the condition of the nation's wetlands, and developing methods for better protecting
wetland function. Coastal wetlands are a focus area of current interagency wetlands collaboration.
The agencies meet and are conducting a series of coastal wetlands reviews to identify causes and
prospective tools and approaches to address the 84,100 acre loss over five years in marine and
estuarine wetlands that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented in the 2011 "Status and Trends
of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States: 2004 to 2009" report. Additionally, the EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have worked very closely together in implementing the
regulatory program under Clean Water Act Section 404. Under the regulatory program, the
agencies have coordinated closely on overall implementation of the permitting decisions made
annually under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, through the headquarters offices as well as
660
-------
the ten EPA Regional Offices and 38 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Offices. The agencies
also have coordinated closely on policy development, training, development of technical tools for
field use, litigation, and implementing the Executive Order on Infrastructure Permitting. The EPA
also works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration on regulatory matters involving permits. The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are committed to achieving the goal of no net loss of wetlands under the Clean Water
Act Section 404 program.
Research
While EPA is the federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other federal and non-
federal entities conduct research that complements the EPA's research on priority contaminants in
drinking water. For example, the CDC and NIEHS conduct health effects and exposure research.
FDA also performs research on children's risks.
Many of these research activities have been conducted in collaboration with EPA scientists. The
private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas as
analytical methods, treatment technologies, and the development and maintenance of water
resources. Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works
Association, Water Research Foundation, and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water
research. The EPA has worked with USGS to evaluate performance of newly developed methods
for measuring microbes in potential drinking water sources.
The EPA has developed joint research initiatives with NOAA and USGS for linking monitoring
data and field study information with available toxicity data and assessment models for developing
sediment criteria.
Land and Emergency Management Programs
Brownfields
The EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Programs have been key participants in the HUD-
DOT-EPA Sustainable Communities Partnership to promote livability and sustainable
development. The EPA's Brownfields program also has partnered with the Department of Labor
and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to support environmental
workforce development and fund job training and placement programs in brownfield communities.
The Brownfields and Land Revitalization programs have worked with USD A, HHS, and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to identify ways in which federal
programs can increase food access in all communities and ensure access to quality health care.
Improved access to healthy food and health care services can catalyze redevelopment that
contributes to healthier and more sustainable communities. The Brownfields and Land
Revitalization programs also have partnered with the National Park Service and its River and Trails
Program to support Groundwork USA and individual Groundwork teams in their efforts to engage
youth in community revitalization. The EPA has led the Brownfields Federal Partnership, which
includes more than 20 federal agencies dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields
properties. Partner agencies have worked together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
redevelop brownfields.
661
-------
The EPA has worked with other federal agencies whose decisions, rules, investments, and policies
influence where and how development occurs, including working with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to assist in the development and inclusion of metrics into GSA tools for
evaluating lease opportunities according to each building's level of transit access and proximity to
walkable destinations. Additionally, the EPA and GSA have partnered to provide technical
assistance to communities to integrate the siting of new federal facilities or reuse of existing
facilities into neighborhood-wide efforts to improve community sustainability.
The EPA has provided support to other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, for activities including jointly delivering technical assistance to rural Appalachian
communities and proposing language that supports both economic development and better
environmental outcomes in grant solicitations and other guidance documents. This assistance has
helped these agencies and the communities they work with protect the environment and increase
resilience through their community development programs, policies, regulations, and resources,
while meeting their core agency objectives. The EPA has collaborated with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to expand
efforts to deliver targeted assistance to communities recovering from natural disasters.
To improve the accessibility of federal and state resources for communities, the EPA recently
launched its Community Resources website (www.epa.gov/communities). This site brings
together some of the federal government's best web-based tools for providing environmental
information to large and small communities. For example, the National Resource Network, a
significant effort by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help American cities
meet economic challenges, is a core component of the Community Resources website. This site
also provides a means of disseminating the important work of the Interagency Partnership for
Sustainable Communities, as described above.
The EPA also has co-sponsored the Governor's Institute on Community Design with HUD and
DOT. The institute works with governors and their cabinets to help states plan for extreme weather
events and improve environmental and public health outcomes of community development.
Economically Distressed Communities
The EPA has brought expertise on the importance of downtown revitalization, the use of green
infrastructure strategies, green demolition, and sustainable development strategies to the federal
government to help economically distressed communities. The EPA's work has positively
impacted the work of HUD, DOT, Commerce, HHS, Homeland Security, the Small Business
Administration, Justice, Labor, and many other agencies and departments.
Research
Research in ecosystems protection has been coordinated government-wide through the Committee
on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS). The EPA has actively
participated in the CENRS and all work is fully consistent with, and complementary to, other
Committee member activities. EPA scientists have staffed two CENRS Subcommittees: the
Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (SES) and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and
Quality (SWAQ). The EPA has initiated discussions, within the SES, on the subject of ecosystem
662
-------
goods and services (EGS) and potential EGS collaborations are being explored with the U.S.
Geological Service (USGS) and with USD A Forest Service (USFS). Within SWAQ, the Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) research program has contributed to an initiative for a
comprehensive census of water availability and quality, including the use of Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program methods and ongoing surveys (National Aquatic Surveys)
as data sources. In addition, the EPA has taken a lead role with USGS in preparing a SWAQ
document outlining new challenges for integrated management of water resources, including
strategic needs for monitoring and modeling methods, and identifying water requirements needed
to support the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems.
Consistent with the broad scope of the EPA's ecosystem research efforts, the EPA has had
complementary and joint programs with USFS, USGS, USD A, NOAA, BLM, NGOs, and many
others specifically to minimize duplication, maximize scope, and maintain a real time information
flow. For example, all of these organizations have worked together to produce the National Land
Cover Data used by all landscape ecologists nationally. Each has contributed funding, services,
and research to this uniquely successful effort.
The EPA has expended substantial effort coordinating its research with other federal agencies,
including work with DoD in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, DOE, and its Office
of Health and Environmental Research. The EPA also has conducted collaborative laboratory
research with DoD, DOE, DOI (particularly USGS), and NASA to improve characterization and
risk management options for dealing with subsurface contamination.
The agency has worked with NIEHS, which manages a large basic research program focusing on
Superfund issues, to advance fundamental Superfund research. The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also has provided critical health-based information to assist the
EPA in making effective cleanup decisions. The EPA has worked with these agencies on
collaborative projects, information exchange, and identification of research issues and has a MOU
with each agency. The EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Navy signed a
MOU to increase collaboration and coordination in contaminated sediments research.
Additionally, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has been an effective forum
for coordinating federal and state activities and for defining continuing research needs through its
teams on topics including permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and Brownfields. The EPA
has developed a MOU1 with several other agencies (DOE, DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA, and USD A)
for multimedia modeling research and development.
Other research efforts involving coordination include the unique controlled-spill field research
facility designed in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. Geophysical research
experiments and development of software for subsurface characterization and detection of
contaminants have been conducted with the USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
1 For more information, please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http: //www. iscniem.org/Memorandiim. htm.
663
-------
The EPA has coordinated with DoD's SERDP in an ongoing partnership, especially in the areas
of sustainability research and of incorporating materials lifecycle analysis into the manufacturing
process for weapons and military equipment. The EPA has collaborated with the Army as part of
their Net Zero Initiative, to develop and demonstrate innovative waste technologies to accomplish
the Army's goal of net zero energy, water, and waste by 2020.
Several federal agencies sponsor research on variability and susceptibility in risks from exposure
to environmental contaminants. The EPA has collaborated with a number of the Institutes within
the NIH and CDC. For example, NIEHS conducts multi-disciplinary biomedical research
programs, prevention and intervention efforts, and communication strategies. The NIEHS program
includes an effort to study the effects of chemicals, including pesticides and other toxics, on
children. The EPA has collaborated with NIEHS in supporting the Centers for Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention, which study whether and how environmental
factors play a role in children's health and with the National Institute on Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) on the development and implementation of the National Children's Study.
Additionally, the EPA, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD),
NIEHS, and NICHD co-fund the Centers of Excellence for Research on Environmental Health
Disparities. This funding has broadened research on disadvantaged communities and the impacts
of greater exposures of ambient hazards.
Superfund Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial program has coordinated with several other federal agencies, such as
ATSDR and NIEHS, in providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish the
program's mission.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers substantially contributes to Superfund site cleanups by
providing a wide range of technical, management, and acquisition support functions to implement
or oversee responsible party Superfund project implementation for the remedial and removal
programs. Most notably, this federal partner has the technical design, construction expertise, and
contracting capability needed to assist the EPA's regional Superfund programs in implementing
complex Superfund remedial action projects.
This agency also provides technical on-site support to the EPA's Regional Offices in the
enforcement oversight of numerous construction projects performed by private Potentially
Responsible Parties.
Superfund Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse program has coordinated with federal
agencies, states, tribes, state associations, and others to implement its statutory responsibilities to
ensure protective and efficient cleanup and reuse of federally contaminated land on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The program has facilitated early transfer of property and provided technical
and regulatory oversight at federal facilities to ensure human health and the environment are
protected. The program has worked with federal partners to target high priority sites, to consider
best practices to develop innovative solutions to emerging and unique contaminants, and
664
-------
implement strategies to address the remaining Federal Facility Superfund sites that have not
reached cleanup completion.
To ensure the long-term protectiveness of remedies, the agency will continue monitoring,
overseeing progress, and improving the quality and consistency of five-year reviews being
conducted at federal facility NPL sites where waste has been left in place and land use is restricted.
Five-year reviews are required under Section 121(c) of CERCLA and the EPA's role is to concur
or make its own independent protectiveness finding. The EPA has worked collaboratively with
DoD, DOE, and DOI, through a Federal Workgroup, to improve the technical quality, timeliness,
and cost of the five-year review reports and to ensure that the community is aware of the
protectiveness of the remedy. The workgroup assesses the use of best management practices and
evaluates trend data to improve the five-year review process.
The EPA has participated with other federal agencies on the Federal Mining Dialogue (FMD). The
FMD is a cooperative initiative among federal environmental and land management agencies. It
provides a national level forum for federal agencies to identify and discuss lessons learned and
technical mining impact issues associated with the cleanup and reuse of abandoned and inactive
hard rock and abandoned uranium mines across the country. The EPA Abandoned Mine Lands
Program has coordinated through the agency's National Mining Team (NMT). The EPA's NMT
has representatives on each of the FMD workgroups: Data Standards, Best Practices, Cost
Recovery, and Watershed Strategy.
The EPA also has participated with other federal agencies on the Munitions Response Dialogue
(MRD). The MRD is a multi-agency dialogue with EPA, DoD, Federal Land Managers, and states
to identify and discuss issues arising from munitions site cleanups throughout the country.
The EPA and DoD have participated on the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF).
The IDQTF was established to address real and perceived inconsistencies and deficiencies in
quality control for laboratory data within and across governmental organizations which result in
greater costs, time delays, and an increase in the potential for risks. The task force is working to
ensure that environmental data are of known and documented quality and suitable for their
intended uses.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse program has developed and implemented
innovative technologies, processes, and collaboration efforts. By working in concert with other
federal agencies, the EPA has promoted the advancement of cleanup technologies, expansion of
contaminated land reuse to support renewable energy projects, and multiple initiatives to support
sustainability. These projects not only help support the agency's goal to cleanup communities, but
they also facilitate the introduction of innovative solutions to both the public and private sector.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program
The RCRA Corrective Action program has coordinated closely with other federal agencies,
primarily the DoD and DOE, which have many sites in the corrective action universe. Encouraging
federal facilities to meet the RCRA Corrective Action program's goals of investigating and
cleaning up hazardous releases remains a top priority. The EPA also has coordinated with other
665
-------
agencies, primarily DoD, on cleanup and disposal issues posed by polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Emergency Preparedness and Response
The EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. The EPA implements the
Emergency Preparedness program in coordination with the DHS through the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) acting as the chair for the National Response Team and co-chair for each Regional
Response Team. These teams, which have member participation from other key federal agencies,
deliver federal assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments to plan for and respond to natural
disasters and other major environmental incidents. This requires coordination with many federal,
state, and local agencies. The agency participates with other federal agencies to develop national
planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
The National Response Framework (NRF), under the direction of the DHS, provides for the
delivery of federal assistance to states to help them deal with the consequences of terrorist events,
acts of malfeasance, as well as natural and other significant disasters. The EPA has maintained the
lead responsibility for the NRF's Emergency Support Function #10 covering inland hazardous
materials and petroleum releases and participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function
Leaders Group which addresses NRF planning and implementation at the operational level.
The EPA has coordinated its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other federal agencies, states, and local governments. The EPA will continue to
clarify its roles and responsibilities to ensure that agency security programs are consistent with the
national homeland security strategy.
The EPA also has worked with FEMA on hazard mitigation and recovery through a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA). This MOA has allowed the EPA and FEMA to collaborate on policies, as
well as with other agencies like NOAA, HUD, and DOT, to help communities become more
resilient to natural disasters (to date, the EPA has worked in communities in Iowa, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and others).
Oil Spills
Under the Oil Spill Program, the EPA has worked with other federal agencies, such as U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, DOI, DOT, DOE, and other
federal agencies and states, as well as with local government authorities to develop Area
Contingency Plans. The Department of Justice also has provided assistance to agencies with
judicial referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. In addition, the EPA and the
USCG work in coordination to address oil spills nationwide.
Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country
The EPA has a long history of working with other federal agencies to address shared environmental
and human health concerns. The EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health
666
-------
and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development have worked through several Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) as partners to
improve infrastructure on tribal lands.
All five federal partners renewed their commitment to the Infrastructure Task Force in 2013 by
signing an MOU to continue federal coordination in delivering services to tribal communities. The
Infrastructure Task Force has built on prior partner successes, including improved access to
funding and reduced administrative burden for Tribal communities through the review and
streamlining of agency policies, regulations, and directives as well as improved coordination of
technical assistance to water service providers and solid waste managers through regular
coordination meetings and web-based tools.
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Programs
The EPA has coordinated with and used information from many federal departments and agencies,
as well as many state Departments/Agencies and international organizations, in efforts to protect
America's health and environment from unacceptable risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals.
The EPA's activities include collaboration with individual government organizations on specific
technical or regulatory issues and more broadly with groups of organizations on a range of issues.
Many of these activities are described below.
To fulfill the EPA's responsibilities for regulating the sale and use of pesticides, the agency has
used a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users and other stakeholders,
government agencies, and the general public. Outreach and coordination activities through field
programs have been essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions governing the
sale and use of pesticides. Coordination activities have protected workers and the environment,
including endangered species, provided training for pesticide applicators, promoted integrated pest
management and environmental stewardship, supported compliance through the EPA's Regional
programs and those of the states and tribes, and promoted international cooperation.
The EPA's coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) and state lead agencies
for pesticides has supported the Certification and Training program for pesticide applicators who
use the riskiest pesticides. States also play an important role in developing and implementing
Worker Protection programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations,
including emergency response efforts. The EPA's Regional Offices have provided technical
guidance and assistance to the states and tribes in the implementation of all pesticide program
activities.
In addition to the training that the EPA provides to farm workers and applicators of restricted use
pesticides, the EPA has worked with the USDA's Cooperative Extension Service designing and
delivering specialized training for various groups. Such training has included instructing private
applicators on the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment
calibration, handling spill and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide spray
drift, and pesticide and container disposal. Other specialized training has been provided to public
works employees on grounds maintenance, to pest control operators on proper insect identification,
and on weed control for agribusiness.
667
-------
The EPA has relied on data from HHS and USD A to supplement data from the pesticide industry
to help the agency assess the potential risks of pesticides in the diets of adults and children. The
EPA has relied on pesticide residue data in food commodities generated by USD A in its Pesticide
Data Program to improve its dietary risk assessment of pesticides. These data and those from other
sources, including FDA, have helped the EPA achieve its mission of protecting human health.
These data sources have served as a showcase for federal cooperation on pesticide and food safety
issues. Other collaborative efforts have included developing and validating methods to analyze
domestic and imported food samples for chemicals of concern, such as carcinogens and
neurotoxins. The agency also has coordinated with FDA's National Toxicology Program and
HHS' Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences on a variety of technical
and communication issues.
While the EPA is responsible for making pesticide registration and tolerance decisions, primary
responsibility for pesticide enforcement activities under FIFRA rests with the states. The FDA
enforces tolerances for pesticide residues in most foods and the USD A enforces tolerances for
meat, poultry, and some egg products. These joint efforts protect Americans from unhealthy
pesticide residue levels.
In addition to a focus on protecting humans from pesticide risks, the EPA has been engaged with
other government agencies on many important environmental issues. The agency has collaborated
extensively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service on developing methods for assessing potential
risks to endangered and threatened species and in developing approaches to mitigate unacceptable
risks. The EPA also has worked with USDA and many other federal agencies, state agencies, and
other entities to address risks to honey bees and other pollinators that are critical to our
environment and the production of food crops.
The EPA has worked to promote improved health and environmental protection domestically and,
when feasible, in other countries. This includes coordination not only with other countries, but also
with international organizations such as the North American Commission on Environmental
Cooperation (CEC). The EPA has cooperated with governments in other countries bilaterally or
through treaties or other formal agreements.
The EPA has developed a strong network of government, private sector, and non-governmental
partners working to achieve reductions in global mercury use and emissions, particularly when
adverse U.S. impacts would be likely. The EPA has worked closely with the Department of State
in leading the technical and policy engagement for the United States in the Minamata Convention
on Mercury. The EPA provided the impetus for UNEP's Global Mercury Partnership and the
agency has worked with developing and other developed countries in the context of that program.
In addition to the Department of State, the EPA has collaborated closely with several federal
agencies including DOE and USGS. As the agency prepares for implementation of the Minamata
Convention, the EPA has continued to support the Global Mercury Partnership and sharing of
information through the Arctic Council on reducing releases of mercury which disproportionally
impact indigenous arctic communities.
668
-------
The EPA has collaborated with the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security,
USD A, FDA, and other federal and state organizations on a variety of technical and policy
homeland security issues. These issues focus on protecting the public and food and agriculture
sectors from threats associated with use of chemical and biological agents. The EPA has
collaborated with these organizations on research pertaining to effective disinfectants for high
threat microorganisms, planning for response to various potential incidents, training, and
development of policies and guidelines. The EPA has continued to partner with OSHA, NIOSH,
and CPSP on risk assessment and risk mitigation activities.
One of the agency's most valuable resources on pesticide issues has been the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), a representative Federal Advisory Committee, which brings
together a broad cross-section of knowledgeable individuals from organizations representing
divergent views to discuss pesticide regulatory, policy, and implementation issues. The PPDC
consists of members from federal and state government agencies, industry/trade associations,
pesticide user and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest groups, and
others. The PPDC has provided a structured environment for meaningful information exchanges
and consensus building discussions, keeping the public involved in decisions that affect them.
Dialogue with outside groups is essential if the agency is to remain responsive to the needs of the
affected public, growers, and industry organizations.
To effectively participate in international agreements on chemicals (e.g., persistent organic
pollutants (POPs), mercury, and heavy metals), the EPA has continued to coordinate with other
federal agencies and external stakeholders, such as Congressional staff, industry, and
environmental groups. Similarly, the agency typically coordinates with the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease Control/Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR), the National Institute of
Environmental Health Services (NIEHS), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
on matters relating to OECD test guideline harmonization.
As part of the EPA's chemical safety program, the agency is implementing the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSC A), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
Act, signed into law on June 22, 2016. The EPA will conduct existing chemical prioritization and
evaluations under the provisions of TSCA, as amended, and address any unreasonable risks
identified through such evaluations. In 2016, following enactment of the new law, the agency
established a senior leaders forum to consult with other federal agencies on its implementation of
prioritization, risk evaluations and management mandates, including data sharing of uses,
exposures, and hazard data. Participants include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the Department of Labor, and the
Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). These consultations on chemicals of common
interest foster improved communication and coordination on scientific, health, and regulatory
issues.
669
-------
In implementing TSCA as amended, the EPA also has been seeking input from other federal
agencies to help inform the agency's efforts through the newly formed interagency Committee on
Toxicity Assessment (CTA) that operates under the CENRS. Additionally, the EPA frequently
consults with these agencies on project design, progress, and the results of chemical testing
proj ects. The EPA also consults with these other agencies on their testing and monitoring programs
and incorporates them, as appropriate, into chemical assessment and risk reduction activities.
These technical discussions inform and keep current the federal network on cross-agency technical
understandings and support the senior leader consultations.
The EPA's Toxics Program is committed to fulfilment of all of EPA's Indian Policies and adhering
to the Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Program's Tribal Strategic Plan. The program has
participated in the EPA's meetings with the National Tribal Operations Committee (NTOC) and
other Tribal engagement groups on a wide variety of related activities and actions that impact
Tribal governments, lands, and communities. Some of the most recent outreach and consultation
efforts have focused on proposed regulatory actions for trichloroethylene (TCE), and paint
removers methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), assessments of TSCA Work Plan
chemicals, and other chemical issues such as PCB use. In addition, the National Tribal Toxics
Council (NTTC) provides tribes with an opportunity for offering advice on the development of
EPA chemical management programs that affect tribes, policies, and activities. The EPA has met
with the NTTC in person twice per year and conducts monthly teleconferences with its members.
Research
The EPA's Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast™) is part of an ongoing multi-agency effort under the
Tox21 collaboration MOU. Tox21 has pooled chemical research, data, and screening tools from
multiple federal agencies including the EPA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). ToxCast has utilized existing resources to develop faster, more
thorough predictions of how chemicals will affect human and environmental health. Tox21 and
ToxCast are currently screening nearly 10,000 environmental chemicals for potential toxicity in
high-throughput screening assays at the NIH Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
(NCATS). The EPA also has an agreement to provide NCATS funding to support the effort.
The EPA recently announced the public release of chemical screening data on 1,800 chemicals
that was gathered through advanced techniques, including robotics and high-throughput screening,
as part of the ongoing Tox21 federal collaboration to improve chemical screening.
Health Canada and EPA have collaborated to explore approaches for using new data streams to
assess chemicals for potential risks to human health. Health Canada is currently under a regulatory
mandate to develop Chemical Management Plan 3 (CMP3). The chemicals in CMP3 include
chemicals lacking traditional toxicity data. Health Canada is working with EPA CSS to determine
how to use high-throughput screening data and other types of non-traditional chemical data to help
fill the data gaps for the chemicals in CMP3.
670
-------
The EPA has coordinated its nanotechnology research with other federal agencies through the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),2 which is managed under the Subcommittee on
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) of the NSTC Committee on Technology
(CoT). The EPA has collaborated with many federal agencies in the development of a government-
wide approach to nanotechnology research through the Committee on Environment, Natural
Resources, and Sustainability Charter (CENRS) at the White House's Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). The EPA and the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
have collaborated to develop protocols to assess the potential release of nanomaterials from
consumer products; develop credible rules for consumer product testing to evaluate exposure; and
determine potential public health impacts of nanomaterial used in consumer products.
The EPA has coordinated its research on endocrine disruptors with other federal agencies through
the interagency working group on endocrine disruptors under the auspices of the Toxics and Risk
Subcommittee of the CENRS. The EPA has coordinated its biotechnology research through the
interagency biotechnology research working group and the agricultural biotechnology risk analysis
working group of the Biotechnology Subcommittee of NSTC's Committee on Science.
The EPA has consulted extensively with other federal agencies about the science of individual
IRIS assessments, as well as improvements to the IRIS program, through an interagency working
group including public health agencies (e.g., CDC, ATSDR, NIOSH, and NIEHS), many other
agencies (e.g., DOD, NASA, SBA, DOT, DOE, DOI, etc.), and White House offices (OMB,
OSTP, and CEQ). The EPA also has coordinated with ATSDR through a memorandum of
understanding on the development of toxicological reviews and toxicology profiles, respectively.
The EPA has contracted with the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council
(NRC) on very difficult and complex human health risk assessments through consultation or
review. The NRC currently is conducting a comprehensive review of the IRIS assessment
development process, including EPA's recent enhancements.
Homeland Security research has been conducted in collaboration with numerous agencies,
leveraging funding across multiple programs to produce synergistic results. The EPA's Homeland
Security Research Program has worked closely with the DHS to assure that the EPA, in its role as
a supporting agency responsible for cleanup during a Stafford Act declaration under ESF-10 and
as the lead agency for water infrastructure, has the science to back decisions. Recognizing that the
DoD has significant expertise and facilities related to biological and chemical warfare agents, the
EPA has worked closely with the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), the
Technical Support Working Group, the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Air Force, and other
Department of Defense organizations to address areas of mutual interest and concern related to
both cleanup and water infrastructure protection. To identify and support these collaborations, the
EPA has participated in a tri-agency research partnership (Technical Coordination Working Group
- TCWG) with the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security (DHS) that focuses on
chemical and biological defense needs and gaps as they relate to homeland security. TCWG
activities include: information sharing, joint science and technology research projects, and
complementing policies. These efforts have improved the preparedness of the U.S. domestic
authorities to detect, deter, protect against, respond to, and recover from chemical or biological
attack. In conducting biological agent research, the EPA also has collaborated with CDC. The
2 For more information, see .
671
-------
program also has conducted joint research with USDA and DOI focusing on addressing homeland
security threats at the intersection of the environment/public health and agriculture/natural
resources. The EPA has worked with DOE to access and conduct research at the DOE's National
Laboratories' specialized research facilities.
The HSRP also has consulted with the Water Sector and Government Coordinating Councils of
Department of Homeland Security's Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council to
understand the needs of the water sector and provide the latest research to the community. Other
critical stakeholders, like the America Water Works Association and Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, also can benefit from research. HSRP also has
worked with state and local emergency response personnel and public health and environmental
agencies to better understand their needs and build relationships, which can enable the quick
deployment of research products.
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Programs
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program has coordinated closely with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) on all civil and criminal environmental enforcement matters. In
addition, the program has coordinated with other agencies on specific environmental issues as
described herein.
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program has coordinated with the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, OSHA, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases and endangerment situations.
Additionally, the program has coordinated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on Tribal issues
relative to compliance with environmental laws on Tribal lands and with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) on the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA). The program also has shared information with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) on cases that require defendants to pay civil penalties, thereby assisting the IRS in
assuring compliance with tax laws. In addition, it has collaborated with the SBA to maintain
current environmental compliance information at Business.gov, a website initiated as an e-
government initiative in 2004, to help small businesses comply with government regulations.
Coordination also has occurred with the United States Army Corps of Engineers on wetlands
issues.
The United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) has had a major role in determining whether areas on agricultural lands meet the
definition of wetlands for purposes of the Food Security Act and civil enforcement works with
them as necessary. The EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program also has
coordinated with USDA on the regulation of animal feeding operations and on food safety issues
arising from the misuse of pesticides and shares joint jurisdiction with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) on pesticide labeling and advertising. The EPA has worked with Customs and
Border Protection on implementing the secure International Trade Data System across all federal
agencies and on pesticide imports and on hazardous waste and Cathode Ray Tube exports. The
EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share jurisdiction over general-purpose
disinfectants used on non-critical surfaces and some dental and medical equipment surfaces. The
672
-------
EPA and FDA also have collaborated and shared information on Good Laboratory Program
inspections to avoid duplication of inspections and maximize efficient use of limited resources.
The agency has entered into an agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) concerning enforcement of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) lead-
based paint notification requirements. The agency has coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard,
under the Act, to prevent pollution from Ships and on oil spills under the Clean Water Act.
The Criminal Enforcement program has coordinated with other federal law enforcement agencies
(i.e., Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Customs, DOL, U.S. Treasury, USCG, DOI, and DOJ)
and with international, state, and local law enforcement organizations in the investigation and
prosecution of environmental crimes. The EPA also has actively worked with DOJ to establish
task forces that bring together federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to address
environmental crimes. In addition, the program has an Interagency Agreement with the DHS to
provide specialized criminal environmental training to federal, state, local, and Tribal law
enforcement personnel at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
Executive Order 12088 on Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, directs the EPA
to monitor compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws. The Federal Facility
Enforcement program has coordinated with other federal agencies, states, local, and Tribal
governments to ensure compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws. The EPA also
has supported the FedCenter, the Federal Facilities Environmental Stewardship and Compliance
Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov), which is now governed by a board of more than a dozen
contributing federal agencies.
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program has collaborated closely with the states and
tribes. States perform the vast majority of inspections, direct compliance assistance, and
enforcement actions for many of the EPA's environmental programs. The core federal
environmental statutes envision a partnership between the EPA and the states under which the
EPA develops national standards and policies and the states implement the program under
authority by the EPA. If a state does not seek approval of a program, the EPA must implement that
program in the state. Historically, the level of state approvals has increased as programs mature
and state capacity expands. Nearly all states are authorized for the core water, air, and hazardous
waste programs. The EPA has coordinated with states on training, compliance assistance, capacity
building, and enforcement. The EPA has worked to enhance the network of state and Tribal
compliance assistance providers.
The EPA has worked directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the Trilateral
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The EPA's border activities require close
coordination with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
the DOJ, the Department of State, and the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
The EPA is the lead agency and coordinates U.S. participation in the CEC. The EPA has worked
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey on CEC projects to promote biodiversity cooperation and
with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reduce potential trade and environmental
impacts such as invasive species.
673
-------
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program, together with the EPA's International
program, has provided training and capacity building to foreign governments to improve their
compliance and enforcement programs. This support has helped create a level playing field for
U.S. businesses engaged in global competition, helped other countries improve their
environmental conditions, and ensured U.S. compliance with obligations for environmental
cooperation as outlined in various free trade agreements. In support of these activities, the EPA
has worked closely with the Department of State, selected U.S. Embassies, the US AID, the USTR,
the DOJ, the International Law Enforcement Academies, the U.S. Forest Service, and the DOI.
The EPA also has participated in the OECD Mutual Acceptance of Data program designed to
garner international recognition of testing data in support of pesticides and chemical registrations.
Superfund Enforcement
As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and Executive Order 12580 on Superfund Implementation, the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program has coordinated with other federal agencies in their use of
CERCLA enforcement authority. This includes the coordinated use of CERCLA enforcement
authority at individual hazardous waste sites that are located on both nonfederal land (EPA
jurisdiction) and federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As required by Executive Order 13016,
amending Executive Order 12580, the agency also reviews and concurs on the use of CERCLA
Section 106 authority by other departments and agencies.
The EPA also has coordinated with Natural Resource Trustees (DOI, USDA, Commerce, DOE,
and DOD) to ensure that appropriate and timely notices, required under CERCLA, are sent to the
Natural Resource Trustees to commence the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process. The
EPA also has coordinated natural resource damage assessments, investigations, and planning with
the Trustees. The DOJ also has provided assistance to the EPA with judicial referrals seeking
recovery of response costs incurred by the U.S., injunctive relief to implement response actions,
or enforcement of other CERCLA requirements.
Under Executive Order 12580, the EPA's Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program has
assisted federal agencies in complying with CERCLA and ensured that: 1) all federal facility sites
on the National Priorities List have interagency agreements, also known as Federal Facility
Agreements with enforceable cleanup schedules; 2) FFAs are monitored for compliance; 3)
federal sites are transferred to new owners in an environmentally responsible manner; and 4)
compliance assistance is available to the extent possible. This program also ensures that federal
agencies comply with Superfund cleanup obligations "in the same manner and to the same extent"
as private entities. To enable the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement
program also has coordinated creative solutions that protect both human health and the
environment. These enforcement solutions help restore facilities so they can once again serve an
important role in the economy and welfare of local communities and the country.
674
-------
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
Enabling Support Programs
Office of the Administrator (OA)
The OA supports the leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programs and
activities to protect human health and safeguard the air, water, and land upon which life depends.
Several program responsibilities include congressional and intergovernmental relations, regulatory
management and economic analysis, program evaluation, intelligence coordination, the Science
Advisory Board, children's health, the small business program, environmental training, and
outreach.
The EPA's Office of Policy (OP) interacts with a number of federal agencies during its rulemaking
activities. Per governing statutes and agency priorities, OP submits "significant" regulatory actions
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review prior to signature and
publication in the Federal Register. In addition, OP coordinates the EPA's review of other agency
actions submitted to OMB for review. Under the Congressional Review Act, rules are submitted
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. OP reviews, edits,
tracks, and submits regulatory actions and other documents that are published by the Office of the
Federal Register. For regulations that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, OP collaborates extensively with the Small Business Administration and
OMB. Finally, OP also leads the EPA's review of draft Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda.
From time to time, OP collaborates with other federal regulatory and natural resource agencies
(e.g., the United States Department of Agriculture (USD A), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of the Interior (DOI), and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)) to collect economic data used in the conduct of economic cost-benefit analyses of
environmental regulations and policies and to foster improved interdisciplinary research and
reporting of economic information. This is achieved in several ways, such as representing the EPA
on interagency workgroups or committees tasked with measuring the economic costs and benefits
of federal policies and programs.
OP partners with other federal agencies to improve the quality of federal program evaluation
studies that gather empirical evidence to assess whether and why programs achieve outcomes and
how programs might be changed to improve results. OP supports forums for experts to share and
improve environmental evaluation methodologies and represents the EPA on interagency
workgroups geared toward improving federal capacity to conduct or oversee rigorous and
objective evaluation studies.
OP supports interagency, government-wide efforts that do not fall within the scope of any single
program office. For example, OP is a key participant in government-wide discussions on the
application of sustainable purchasing practices in federal acquisitions. In this effort, OP has
partnered with acquisition leaders in the USD A, the Department of Defense (DOD), the DOE, the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Department of Homeland Security
675
-------
(DHS), the General Services Administration (GSA), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and others to ensure that federal spending meets or exceeds federal
sustainability requirements. This network of federal procurement professionals is seeking to
integrate sustainability into purchasing in a way that makes the process simpler and more effective
for all involved.
The Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the HHS co-chair the President's Task Force
on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. The Task Force comprises
representatives of 17 federal departments and White House offices. A senior staff steering
committee, co-chaired by the Director of the EPA's Children's Health Protection Program,
coordinates interagency cooperation on Task Force priority areas. As part of this effort, the
program may coordinate with other related agencies to improve federal government-wide support
in implementing children's health legislative mandates and children's health outreach. This may
include providing children's environmental health expertise on interagency activities and
coordinating expertise from program offices.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
OCFO makes active contributions to standing interagency management committees, including the
Chief Financial Officers Council, focusing on improving resources management and
accountability throughout the federal government. OCFO actively participates on the Performance
Improvement Council, which coordinates and develops strategic plans, performance plans, and
performance reports as required by law. In addition, OCFO participates in numerous OMB-led E-
Government initiatives such as the Financial Management and Budget Formulation and Execution
Lines of Business and has interagency agreements with the DOI's Interior Business Center (IBC)
for processing agency payroll.
OCFO provides government-to-government employee relocation services via interagency
agreements through the EPA's Federal Employee Relocation Center (FERC) as a Working Capital
Fund (WCF) activity. The EPA-FERC provides "one-stop shop" domestic and international
relocation services to other federal agencies to increase operational efficiency and save the
government money. The EPA-FERC currently provides relocation services internally to all EPA
regions and program offices, and externally to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), Health & Human Services (HHS), and the United States Department
of Agriculture (USD A).
OCFO participates with the Bureau of Census in maintaining the Federal Assistance Awards Data
System. OCFO also coordinates appropriately with Congress and other federal agencies, such as
the Department of Treasury, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the GSA.
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
OARM is committed to working with federal partners that focus on improving management and
accountability throughout the federal government. OARM provides leadership and expertise to
government-wide activities in various areas of human resources, grants management, contracts
676
-------
management, suspension and debarment, and homeland security. These activities include specific
collaboration efforts with federal agencies and departments through:
• Chief Human Capital Officers, a group of senior leaders that discuss human capital
initiatives across the federal government.
• The Legislative and Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other federal agency
representatives who assist the OPM in developing plans and policies for training and
development across the government.
• The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the principal interagency forum for monitoring
and improving the federal acquisition system. The Council also focuses on promoting the
President's specific initiatives and policies in all aspects of the acquisition system.
• The Award Committee for E-Government (E-Gov), which provides strategic vision for the
portfolio of systems/federal wide supporting both federal acquisition and financial
assistance. Support also may be provided to the associated functional community groups,
including the Procurement Committee for E-Gov, the Financial Assistance Committee for
E-Gov, and the Intergovernmental Transaction Working Group.
• The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC), a representative
committee of federal agency leaders in suspension and debarment. The Committee
facilitates lead agency coordination, serves as a forum to discuss current suspension and
debarment related issues, and assists in developing unified federal policy. Besides
participating in the ISDC, OARM may provide instructors for the National Suspension and
Debarment Training Program offered through the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center.
• The Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB), which has been expanded to also
encompass the Grants Management Line of Business. The combined FMLoB, with the
Department of Treasury as the managing partner, will more closely align the financial
assistance and financial management communities around effective and efficient
management of funds. OARM also participates in the Grants.gov Users' Group, as well as
the Federal Demonstration Partnership which is designed to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with research grants.
• The Partnership for Sustainable Communities initiative, a collaborative effort with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation,
improves the alignment and delivery of grant resources to communities designated under
certain environmental programs. It also helps identify cases in the program that may
warrant consideration of suspension and debarment.
• The Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory Committee Management (Committee
Management Officer Council) provides leadership and coordination on federal advisory
committee issues and promotes effective and efficient committee operations government-
wide. In addition to serving on the Council, OARM works with the GSA Committee
677
-------
Management Secretariat to establish and renew advisory committees, conduct annual
reviews of advisory committee activities and accomplishments, maintain committee
information in a publicly accessible online database, and develop committee management
regulations, guidance, and training. Further, OARM participates on the GSA Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Attorney Council Interagency Workgroup to keep
abreast of developments in the statutory language, case law, interpretation, and
implementation of the FACA.
In addition, throughout FY 2017 and FY 2018, OARM will continue working with the DOI's IBC,
which is an OPM and OMB approved Human Resources Line of Business shared service center.
IBC offers HR transactional processing, compensation management and payroll processing,
benefits administration, time and attendance, HR reporting, talent acquisition systems, and talent
management systems. OARM also continues its charter membership on the OPM HR Line of
Business Multi Agency Executive Strategy Committee (MAESC), providing advice and
recommendations to the Director of OPM as well as additional government-wide executive
leadership, for the implementation of the HR Line of Business vision, goals, and objectives.
OARM also is working with OMB, GSA, DHS, and Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology to continue to implement the Smart Card program.
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
To support the EPA's overall mission, OEI collaborates with a number of other federal agencies,
states, and Tribal governments on a variety of initiatives, including making government more
efficient and transparent, protecting human health and the environment, and assisting in homeland
security. OEI is primarily involved in the information technology (IT), information management
(IM), and information security aspects of the projects on which it collaborates.
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council: The CIO Council is the principal interagency
forum for improving practices in the design, modernization, use, sharing, and performance of
federal information resources. The Council develops recommendations for IT/IM policies,
procedures, and standards; identifies opportunities to share information resources; and assesses
and addresses the needs of the federal IT workforce.
eRulemaking: The EPA serves as the Program Management Office (PMO) for the eRulemaking
Program. The eRulemaking Program's mission encompasses two areas: to improve public access,
participation in, and understanding of the rulemaking process; and to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of agency partners' notice and comment process when promulgating regulations. The
eRulemaking Program maintains a public website, http://www.regulations.gov/. which enables the
general public to access and submit comments on various documents that are published in the
Federal Register, including proposed regulations and agency-specific notices. The Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) is the agency side ofRegulations.gov. FDMS enables agencies to
administer public submissions regarding regulatory and other documents posted by the agencies
on the Regulations.gov website. The increased public access to the agencies' regulatory process
enables a more informed public to provide supporting technical/legal/economic analyses to
strengthen the agencies' rulemaking vehicles. The PMO, located at the EPA, coordinates the
operations of the eRulemaking Program through its 40 partner departments and independent
678
-------
agencies (comprising more than 178 agencies, boards, commissions, and offices). The
administrative committee structure works with the PMO on day-to-day operations, ongoing
enhancements, and long-range planning for program development. These committees and boards
(the Executive Steering Committee and the Advisory Board) have representative members from
each partner agency and deal with contracts, budget, website improvements, improved public
access, records management, and a host of other regulatory concerns that were formally only
agency-specific in nature. Coordination and leadership from the OMB, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, and partner agencies allows for a more uniform and consistent presentation of
rulemaking dockets across government. This coordination is further demonstrated by the fact that
more than 90 percent of all federal rules promulgated annually are managed through the
eRulemaking Program.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): The EPA serves as the lead for the FOIAonline, a multi-
agency solution that enables the EPA and partner agencies to meet their responsibilities under
FOIA while creating a repository of publicly released FOIA records for reuse. Through
FOIAonline, the public has the ability to submit and track requests, search and download requests
and responsive records, correspond with processing staff, and file appeals. Agency users are
provided with a secure, login-access web site to receive and store requests, assign and process
requests (and refer to other agencies), post responses online, produce the annual FOIA report to
the Department of Justice, and manage records electronically. Current federal partners include the
EPA, the Department of Commerce, the National Archive and Records Administration, the Merit
Systems Protection Board, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, Customs and Border Protection, the Department of the Navy, GSA, Federal
Communications Commission, the Small Business Administration, DOJ's Office of Information
Policy, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys and the Department of Defense's Defense Logistics
Agency and its Office of the Inspector General.
The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN): The EN is a partnership
among states, tribes, territories, and the EPA. It revolutionizes the exchange of environmental
information by allowing these partners to share data efficiently and securely over the Internet. The
EN uses technology, data standards, open-source software, shared services, reusable tools, and
applications to provide real-time access to higher quality data. This approach improves data
accessibility, streamlines processes, reduces operational costs, and saves time and resources for all
of the partners, ultimately leading to improved environmental decision making. Leadership for the
EN is provided by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which is co-chaired by the
EPA and a state partner. The ENLC works with representatives from the EPA, state, and territorial
environmental agencies and Tribal organizations to manage the Exchange Network.
Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS): ITDS
is the electronic information exchange capability, or "single window," through which businesses
will transmit data required by participating agencies for the import or export of cargo. ACE is the
system being built by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ensure that its customs officers and
other federal agencies have the information they need to decide how to handle goods and
merchandise being shipped into or out of the United States. It also will be the way those agencies
provide CBP with information about potential imports/exports. ITDS eliminates the need, burden
and cost of paper reporting. It also allows importers and exporters to report the same information
679
-------
to multiple federal agencies with a single submission, and facilitates movement of cargo by
automating processing of the import and exports. ITDS provides the capability for industry to
consolidate reporting for commodities regulated by multiple agencies. For these consolidated
reports, the industry filers will receive the appropriate status response when their filings meet each
agency's reporting requirements. Once all agency reporting requirements have been met, filers can
receive a coordinated single U.S. government response to proceed into the commerce of the United
States.
The EPA has the responsibility and legal authority to make sure pesticides, toxic chemicals,
vehicles, engines, ozone-depleting substances, and other commodities entering and hazardous
waste exiting the country meet its human health and environmental standards. The EPA's ongoing
collaboration with CBP on the ACE/ITDS effort will improve the efficiency of processing these
shipments through information exchange between the EPA and CBP and automated processing of
electronic filings. The EPA will continue to work with CBP towards the goal to automate the
current manual paper review process for admissibility so that importers and brokers (referred to
collectively as Trade) can know before these commodities are loaded onto an airplane, truck, train,
or ship if their shipment meets the EPA's reporting requirements. As a result of this automated
review, Trade can greatly lower its cost of doing business and customs officers at our nation's
ports will have the information on whether shipments comply with our environmental regulations.
Geospatial Information: The EPA works with DOI, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
NASA, USD A, and DHS on developing and implementing geospatial approaches to support
various business areas. It also works with 25 additional federal agencies through the activities of
the federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the OMB Geospatial Line of Business (Geo
LoB), for which the EPA leads several key initiatives. The EPA also participates in the FGDC
Steering Committee and Executive Committee. A key component of this work is developing and
implementing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and the National GeoPlatform. The
key objective of the NSDI is to make a comprehensive array of national spatial data - data that
portrays features associated with a location or tagged with geographic information and can be
attached to and portrayed on maps - easily accessible to both governmental and public
stakeholders. Use of this data, in tandem with analytical applications, supports several key EPA
and government-wide business areas. These include ensuring that human health and environmental
conditions are represented in the appropriate contexts for targeting and decision making; enabling
the assessment, protection, and remediation of environmental conditions; and aiding emergency
first responders and other homeland security activities. The EPA supports geospatial initiatives
through efforts such as the EPA Geospatial Platform, the EPA Environmental Dataset Gateway,
the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Assist, EPA Metadata Editor, Facilities Registry System (FRS) Web Services, and My
Environment. The EPA also works closely with its state, Tribal, and international partners in a
collaboration that enables consistent implementation of data acquisition and development,
standards, and technologies supporting the efficient and cost effective sharing and use of
geographically-based data and services.
680
-------
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
The EPA Inspector General is a member of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of federal Inspectors General (IGs), GAO, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CIGIE coordinates and improves the way IGs conduct
audits, investigations, and internal operations. The CIGIE also promotes joint projects of
government-wide interest and reports annually to the President on the collective performance of
the IG community. The EPA OIG coordinates criminal investigative activities with other law
enforcement organizations such as the FBI, Secret Service, and DOJ. In addition, the OIG
participates with various inter-governmental audit forums and professional associations to
exchange information, share best practices, and obtain or provide training. The OIG also promotes
collaboration among the EPA's partners and stakeholders in its participation of Hurricane Sandy
oversight and its outreach activities. Additionally, the EPA OIG initiates and participates in
collaborative audits, program evaluations, and investigations with OIGs of agencies with an
environmental mission such as the DOI, USDA, as well as other federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies as prescribed by the IG Act, as amended. As required by the IG Act, the
EPA OIG coordinates and shares information with the GAO. The EPA OIG currently serves as the
Inspector General of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board. The FY 2018
President's Budget proposes to eliminate the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board.
681
-------
Introduction
Major Management Challenges
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the Inspector General to identify the most serious
management challenges facing the EPA, briefly assess the agency's progress in addressing them,
and report annually.
The EPA has established procedures for addressing its major management challenges. The EPA
recognizes that management challenges, if not addressed adequately, may prevent the agency from
effectively meeting its mission. The EPA remains committed to addressing all management issues
in a timely manner and to the fullest extent of its authority.
The following discussion summarizes each of the FY 2016 management challenges identified by
the EPA's OIG and the GAO and presents the agency's response.
1. Addressing EPA's Emerging Role in Climate Change
Summary of Challenge: In 2013, the GAO designated climate change as a "High Risk" area,
noting that climate change poses management challenges for the federal government at large, and
that the EPA will play a role in addressing this challenge. Additionally, GAO states that the federal
government is not well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change and
needs a government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership to manage related risks.
Agency Response: The agency continues implementing regulatory programs including the
Department of Transportation and the EPA fuel economy and GHG emission standards for light-
duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. The agency also implements the GHG Reporting Program
and shares information with the public. In order to fulfill U.S. Treaty obligations under Article 4 of
the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate, the EPA
prepares the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, to provide information
on total annual U.S. emissions and removals by source, economic sector, and greenhouse gas.
2. Reducing Pollution in the Nation's Water
Summary of Challenge: According to the GAO, progress has slowed in reducing water pollution
and improving water quality. The EPA needs to revise outdated effluent guidelines for many
industrial categories and assess new treatment technologies that are available to use to address
"end-of-pipe " sources of pollution. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), which address "non-
point source" pollution, can be more effective if they address roles and responsibilities for
implementation and challenge the voluntary nature of the approach.
Agency Response: The EPA agrees that having improved screening processes for industrial
wastewater discharge would improve the agency's ability to implement its effluent guidelines
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Thus, the agency has focused efforts on
identifying and evaluating additional sources of data on the hazards posed by discharges from
industrial categories, going beyond traditional approaches. Further, the EPA is more thoroughly
considering information on current and available treatment technologies for industrial categories.
682
-------
Regarding the cleanup of impaired waters, the EPA acknowledges that there are program
management changes needed to improve water quality. The EPA is implementing a series of
enhancements in program management to improve the review and approval process for TMDLs.
The EPA also continues to improve coordination and collaboration with USDA to increase the
effectiveness of federal activities in key impaired waters and watersheds.
The EPA continues to take action to improve program implementation through better guidance,
improved non-point source grant conditions, increased oversight of state program implementation,
and better data collection on incremental improvements in water quality and TMDL
implementation. These actions include:
• Formed a workgroup to improve TMDL review and approval process.
• Completed a study with states on GIS reporting and reached agreement on the need to
conduct catchment-based indexing of waters to improve the data which tracks water quality
improvements over time.
• Developing new performance measures to show where improvements in water quality are
occurring.
• Issued new Non-Point Source Program and Grants Guidelines to improve tracking and
reporting of program outcomes for states' non-point source programs.
• Issued guidance to states to assist in updating their non-point source management
programs; 100 percent of states will have completed review and revised their programs by
end of 2015.
• Reviewed new industrial wastewater hazard data and information sources, which resulted
in two detailed studies and one preliminary study under the effluent guidelines program.
• Developed a new Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Database.
3. Providing Assurance that Public Drinking Water is Safe
Summary of Challenge: GAO acknowledges that the EPA has made progress on providing
assurance that public drinking water is safe. In January 2014, GAO reported that the EPA had
implemented three recommendations made in GAO's May 2011 report related to improving the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) Program. GAO reports that, nevertheless,
the UCMR program still faces several outstanding challenges, including uncertainty in true
occurrence of certain contaminants because of a fixed monitoring frequency that can miss
seasonal or sporadic variations; statutory cap of 30 contaminants every 5 years, which restricts
the ability to collect data on additional contaminants that could be monitoredfor additional little
cost; and lag in regulatory determination supported by occurrence data.
Agency Response: The EPA is continually working to improve its oversight to ensure protection
of underground sources of drinking water. The EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program has a solid oversight process, including a close working relationship with its state
partners. Recognizing that geology and hydrology vary across the country and that states have
requirements and solutions tailored to their individual circumstances, the EPA worked with its
state partners to undertake a number of activities to proactively address areas of emerging
concerns. These efforts are designed to ensure regulatory safeguards are in place, improve
implementation and understanding of state and the EPA UIC programs across the nation, and
683
-------
ensure the program is achieving its intended purpose of protecting underground sources of drinking
water.
In February 2015, the agency released the EPA-State UIC National Technical Workgroup report,
Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class II
Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. This report was developed cooperatively with states to help
protect underground sources of drinking water by reducing the chances for induced seismicity.
The report can help UIC managers evaluate the potential for induced seismicity in a planned
injection operation and describes permit conditions that can be added to manage the potential for
induced seismicity. The EPA continues to work with individual states to implement the
recommendations in the report.
The agency will evaluate the potential to expand and validate the use of remote approaches to
oversight, recognizing that the objectives of on-site evaluations on an annual basis may be
accomplished in other ways or at decreased frequency. The EPA is committed to ongoing
improvement of the process to review, approve and codify state regulatory changes so that they
are adequately enforced. Additionally, the agency has completed the development of standard
operating procedures to document roles and responsibilities and ways to avoid duplicative steps.
Recently, the agency completed the development and implementation of several templates for
publishing public notices and rules in the Federal Register, which will standardize the rulemaking
process.
The EPA has made improvements over the first three monitoring cycles (from UCMR 1 to UCMR
2 to UCMR 3) and expects that UCMR 4 will reflect improvements based on lessons learned,
stakeholder input, and the GAO recommendations. The EPA also is considering the practicality
and appropriateness of a shorter period for contaminant monitoring to address the concern about
the availability of UCMR data to support Regulatory Determinations. Working within the statutory
authority established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA will continue to evaluate and select
the most appropriate contaminants for UCMR monitoring. The EPA notes that the statutory cap of
30 contaminants identified by the GAO is codified in the Safe Drinking Water Act and is a matter
for Congressional consideration.
The EPA utilized a workgroup process to develop options for UCMR 4 to develop the rule. In June
2014 the EPA held a public meeting and webinar to describe efforts to develop UCMR 4. This
meeting/webinar exemplifies the agency's commitment to engage our stakeholders earlier in the
process (relative to prior UCMR cycles) and complements a March 2013 public meeting/webinar
focused on the development of analytical methods for Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
priorities. The EPA managers responsible for the CCL, UCMR, and Regulatory Determination
programs meet regularly and have specifically discussed the potential for better aligning the
collection of UCMR data with the Regulatory Determination process.
4. Cost and Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and other Hazardous Waste Sites
Summary of Challenge: According to the GAO, the EPA continues to make progress in identifying
hazardous waste sites requiring cleanup. However, recent GAO reports indicate that not only will
cleanup costs be substantial, but problems with the accuracy and completeness of data prevent the
agency from estimating future cleanup costs. The GAO recommends that the agency assess the
684
-------
comprehensiveness and reliability of the data it collects and, if necessary, improve the data to
provide aggregated information.
Agency Response: The EPA recognizes the challenges in describing the multiple facets of the
Superfund program concisely and realizes that many sites face significant uncertainties regarding
future site cleanup requirements as a result of, among other things, unique and oftentimes unknown
site conditions. Numerous factors contribute to these uncertainties, including the type and extent
of contamination at the site, factors associated with the effectiveness of remedial technologies,
evolving cleanup standards, the viability and cooperativeness of responsible parties, states' ability
to provide statutorily required cost share assurances, and community acceptance of proposed
remedies. Due to these significant uncertainties, aggregate estimates of future costs and
performance, especially on an annual basis, are bound by large ranges, which limit the contribution
such information provides to annual appropriation decision makers.
Since the inception of the Superfund program, the EPA has provided a mix of site-specific and
aggregate data to Congress through the annual budget process and other methods to facilitate
annual Superfund appropriation decisions. The agency recognizes the importance of informing and
educating partners and stakeholders about the EPA's commitment to, and progress toward,
environmental cleanup, and continues to explore options to share information about cleanup plans
and progress at sites.
In FY 2010, the EPA introduced a new remedial action project completion measure which
responds to GAO's recommendations to provide more data on site progress. Also, in an effort to
improve transparency and accountability, the Superfund program has deployed the Superfund
Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which fully integrates site schedules, resource planning
and accomplishment reporting with official supporting documentation. The program is better able
to plan and report site progress as a result of the enhanced functionality of the new tools.
5. Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic
Chemicals/EPA's Framework for Assessing and Managing Chemical Risk
Summary of Challenge: The OIG and GAO believe that the EPA 's effectiveness in assessing and
managing chemical risks is hampered in part by limitations on the agency's authority to regulate
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act and other statutes. Despite those limitations,
the EPA could better assess and manage chemical risks by addressing challenges in data
collection, toxicity screening and improving public access to chemical data. The GAO also has
included the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in its FY 2013 High Risk Report (GA0-
13-283). In FY 2014, GAO completed a third review of the IRIS program.
Agency Response: On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act was signed into law, amending the Toxic Substances Control Act. The new law
substantially strengthens the agency's ability to address risks to human health and the environment
from exposure to toxic chemicals that are subject to TSCA. Additionally, the new law reduces
challenges the agency has faced in obtaining chemical testing data, assessing chemicals, meeting
the thresholds for commencing risk reduction actions and addressing unwarranted confidentiality
claims.
685
-------
The EPA has developed an implementation plan for carrying out the law's requirements and has
completed or made progress on a considerable number of first-year steps. In accordance with the
statutory deadline provided in the 2016 legislation, the agency has identified and begun the risk
evaluations for the first 10 chemicals to be reviewed under the new law. In addition, the EPA has
identified five mercury compounds to be subject to export restrictions and has proposed several
framework rules to implement key provisions of the law, including the TSCA Inventory
Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements, Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under the
Amended Toxic Substances Control Act, and Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk
Evaluation under Toxic Substances Control Act.
The EPA has proposed rules under TSCA Section 6 to address risks identified in three of the five
risk assessments completed prior to enactment of the new law. These rulemakings address TCE
use in spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing and vapor degreasing; methylene chloride use in paint
removers; and NMP use in paint removers. As indicated in the Lautenberg TSCA reform
legislation, successful implementation of the new law's provisions is contingent upon adequate
resources, including fees.
Improving IRIS. In 2009, GAO identified the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
program as a high risk area needing broad-based transformation to address issues of transparency,
program management, and timeliness. Over the last several years, the agency implemented
numerous actions to enable the IRIS program to produce timely, transparent, and credible
assessments in support of the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment.
As GAO acknowledged, the EPA's ability to protect public health and the environment depends
on credible and timely assessments of the risks posed by toxic chemicals across the agency's
various programs. The agency implemented a number of significant IRIS program actions to
improve the scientific foundation of assessments, increase transparency in the program and the
process, and allow the agency to produce more assessments. The EPA leadership demonstrated
strong management direction and support for approaches designed to increase the IRIS program's
productivity and transparency. The EPA received commendation from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) for the significant transformations made to the program in a short period of time
and noted a successful future if the agency continued on its trajectory. Efforts to improve the
program have transitioned to not just address specific recommendations, but to incorporate long-
term goals and planning, consistent with GAO recommendations.
In addition, changes currently being implemented will improve the efficiency of conducting
systematic review. In particular, the program will place increased emphasis on tailoring the scope
of the assessment to match the underlying program or regional client need. This concept is
consistent with the notion of "fit for purpose" assessments that are increasingly being promoted in
environmental health, and is necessary to facilitate the feasibility of systematic review
methodologies. These changes retain transparency and opportunities for public engagement, while
enabling more accurate predictions of the timeframe needed to conduct the assessment. More
targeted assessments that focus on the science specific to decision needs will generally be smaller
in scope than IRIS assessments have been in the past, which will promote greater throughput. This
686
-------
foundational activity will allow the IRIS program to provide greater transparency to agency and
external stakeholders, as well as inform several of the remaining open GAO recommendations.
GAO recommendations have led to fundamental changes in IRIS program activities. Further, the
actions implemented by the IRIS program, the progress made, and the program's continued
commitment to excellence have made a difference and have been recognized by GAO, as well as
the National Academies of Science, the EPA Science Advisory Board, stakeholders and the public.
These changes have improved the quality, transparency, and efficiency of the IRIS program. The
agency is developing a strategy to address the remaining open GAO recommendations, with a goal
of closing all remaining open recommendations by summer 2018.
6. Improving Processes for Conditional Registration of Pesticides and Considering
Children's Health
Summary of Challenge: The GAO highlights vulnerabilities in the Conditional Registration of
Pesticides that could result in human health impacts. Vulnerabilities include inaccurate data and
recordkeeping, insufficient tracking of conditional registrations, and limited management
oversight to ensure that regulatory actions are not misclassified as conditional or unconditional
registrations. The GAO also reports that the EPA has not taken the steps necessary to integrate
children's health in the rulemaking process.
Agency Response: The agency is committed to providing a more integrated solution to track
conditional registration data requirements and data submission for all pesticides. During 2014 and
2015, the EPA continued to create new codes in the Office of Pesticide Program Information
Network (OPPIN) to more clearly distinguish the status of product registrations as conditional or
unconditional (refining codes is an ongoing activity). In 2014 the agency's pesticide program held
divisional training sessions to discuss the regulatory requirements of conditional registrations in
RD, AD, and BPPD. The agency provides refresher training, as well as training for new staff. The
agency also developed draft standard operating procedures detailing how to enter data in the
OPPIN tracking system for conditional and unconditional registrations.
In April 2014, the agency prepared and posted on its website a table showing all pesticide active
ingredients initially registered under conditional registration (2000-2014). The EPA continues to
use this table internally as a tool to track and manage the status of submission, review, and
acceptance of information required as a condition of registration. The periodically releases updated
version of the table to provide the public with up-to-date information on the status of conditional
registrations.
The agency will continue to take actions to improve the review of conditional registration of
pesticides. This includes conducting monthly meetings to help facilitate cross-divisional
coordination, reviewing the status of data submission, developing and standardizing tracking
codes, and training staff to support conditional registration activities.
7. Oversight of Delegations to States / Diminished Capacity of States to Implement Federal
Environmental Programs
687
-------
Summary of Challenge: While progress has been made, including a cross-agency strategy in its
2014-2018 Strategic Plan on a new era of partnerships, the EPA's oversight of state programs
remains a management challenge. The OIG notes the agency's inadequate and inconsistent
oversight of state program implementation across environmental statutes and the absence of
national baselines. The GAO has concerns about the consequences of budget cuts and the ability
of states to fulfill core program requirements.
Agency Response: The agency continues to make state oversight an agency priority and to
improve oversight practices to ensure consistency. An example of the efforts the agency has taken
includes establishing the State Program Health and Integrity Workgroup. This inter-agency
workgroup, composed of the EPA's national program offices for air, enforcement and water,
gathers and analyzes information on oversight of state practices, identifies gaps and develops
solutions.
In response to OIG concerns regarding emission fees, the EPA's oversight has been successful in
addressing fee program concerns that have arisen over time. Moreover, fee oversight is only one
aspect of the EPA's oversight of the complex state operating permit programs, which have been
successful in issuing over 15,000 operating permits, furthering the overarching goals of improving
compliance with air pollution requirements and public involvement in the permitting process. Over
the last two decades, the EPA has provided useful and relevant guidance to implementing
authorities and regions to ensure proper administration and oversight, respectively, of fee programs
for the operating permits programs.
The EPA agrees that a guidance document that discusses the fee aspect of the oversight program
evaluation in additional detail would be useful. The EPA expects to develop such a guidance in
part through assessing the 1993 fee schedule guidance, and by either updating that document or
issuing a separate fee oversight strategy document. This fee oversight strategy guidance is
expected to be responsive to the OIG's recommendations.
The OIG evaluated the underground storage tank (UST) inspection program and recommended
that the EPA work with the states to revise their current Memorandums of Agreement to reflect
program changes from the 2005 Energy Policy Act and address oversight of municipalities
conducting inspections. At the time of the OIG audit, the EPA was in the process of revising the
UST regulations, addressing among other things, State Program Approval (SPA) for the UST
program. The EPA published the revised UST regulations in July 2015, which the EPA provided
states who currently have SPA three years from the rule's effective date to submit their applications
for a reinstatement.
In agreeing to the OIG recommendation for all states to revise their current Memorandum of
Agreement (MOAs), the EPA agreed to time the revision and updates of the MOAs with the re-
SPA timeframe noted in the final UST regulations. The EPA is working with the states and expects
to have revised MOAs by October 2018.
Additional efforts by the agency to address concerns raised by the OIG include:
• Continues to use its oversight authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to work with
state primacy programs and the EPA regional permit authorities to communicate
688
-------
requirements and responsibilities regarding the use of diesel fuels during hydraulic
fracturing.
• Promoting consistency across state section 319 grants by developing nationally consistent
grant conditions for all the EPA regions.
• Implemented the Nonpoint Source program and Grant Guidelines for States and
Territories, which contains specific provisions to strengthen the EPA oversight of state
programs.
The agency's strategy for assisting states in meeting their program requirements is focused on
identifying programmatic areas of highest priority, reducing administrative burdens where
possible, and providing additional time for required activities where allowed while still meeting
the intent of all regulatory mandates. To reduce states' administrative burdens and increase
efficiencies, the agency has introduced a number of cost-effective, streamlined administrative
processes, such as reforming the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process. The regions, with
headquarters' oversight, work closely with states in managing STAG resources provided by
Congress. The EPA revises requirements where possible to make the best use of available
technology and resources to address the most critical air quality issues, such as delaying the
deployment of the near-road monitoring network and activating and encouraging use of electronic
emissions reporting for sources. The agency meets regularly with representatives of state and local
air agencies to identify and resolve issues; routinely suggests budget changes to address funding,
programmatic and technology gaps; and solicits state, local and tribal government input in
developing the annual national program managers' guidance.
8. Improving EPA's Adherence to Guidance for Regulatory Impact Analysis
Summary of Challenge: GAO stated that the EPA did not always adhere to certain aspects of
OMB's Circular A-4 guidance for analyzing the economic effects of regulations in its Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA). According to GAO, the EPA considered regulatory alternatives and
analyzed uncertainties underlying the RIAs, but the information it included and presented in the
RIAs was not always clear. GAO stated that the EPA's review process also does not ensure that
the information that should appear in the analyses is transparent or clear, within and across its
RIAs, so the agency cannot ensure that its RIAs adhere to OMB's guidance to provide the public
with a clear understanding of its decision making. Additionally, GAO stated that the EPA did not
monetize certain benefits and costs related to the primary purposes or key impacts of the rules
GAO reviewed, such as reducing hazardous air pollutants and water quality effects. GAO
concluded that this potentially limits the RIAs' usefulness for helping decision makers and the
public understand these important effects.
GAO recommended the EPA take several actions to improve future adherence to OMB guidance
and enhance the usefulness of its RIAs, including enhancing the agency's review process for RIAs;
improving the accuracy, transparency, and clarity of the RIAs' executive summaries; and
prioritizing for research key categories of benefits and costs that the agency cannot currently
monetize. GAO provided an update to the agency in 2016 on these management challenges,
recognizing the EPA has satisfied the recommendation regarding transparency and clarity of its
executive summaries.
689
-------
Agency Response: The EPA's view is that the GAO's findings do not point to systematic
deficiencies with respect to the accuracy of the agency's analytical work. The RIA is intended to
inform, as appropriate, the development of regulatory standards by providing decision makers with
the ability to systematically assess the consequences of various actions in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the guidelines of OMB Circular A-4. The
EPA relies on the best available information to calculate both the costs and benefits of rules and
further refines these analyses through the interagency and public comment processes. In addition,
the EPA maintains a public docket where all of the underlying documentation for each RIA is
available.
The EPA agrees that there are challenges to fully monetizing all of the public health and
environmental benefits of regulations, including some potentially important effects; however, this
is an issue inherent in benefit-cost analysis and is not unique to regulatory actions undertaken by
this agency. In the RIAs prepared by the EPA, significant effort is put into clearly and transparently
communicating about benefit categories for which the EPA is unable to monetize benefits. In cases
where there may be a benefit with impacts that are expected to be significant but cannot be
monetized using available science and economics, or where quantifiable effects are expected to be
small relative to other benefits, a qualitative assessment may be appropriate. In such cases,
qualitative analyses provide the best available information to communicate to the public. Including
both quantitative and qualitative assessments is an approach that is consistent with the flexibility
provided to agencies in OMB Circular A-4. Each RIA, whether quantitative or qualitative, is based
on the most reliable information available at the time. The EPA continues to work to refine these
analyses over time, and actively seeks outside expert advice for reviews of significant new
scientific information and analytical methodologies.
The agency continually strives to improve its ability to value the benefits and costs of its regulatory
actions and is working on several critical areas of economic valuations. These include:
• Developed and released the Hydrological and Water Quality System (HAWQS) in beta
format. HAWQS is a water quality modeling system capable of supporting national and
regional level economic and policy analyses.
• Utilizing the human health benefits workgroup to support improvements in the agency's
ability to quantify important benefits for hazardous chemicals such as lead, formaldehyde
and chlorinated solvents.
• Preparing additional white papers for the Science Advisory Board panel, which began in
the summer of 2015. Current efforts include white papers on economic impacts, uncertainty
and a memo on competitiveness.
• Planning internal workshops on benefits transfer which will allow more complete benefit
estimation.
• Updating the EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, to include a revised
employment impacts section with an updated literature review, and a description of
theoretic models and empirical methods.
• Solicited and began awarding grant proposals under the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program to support water quality benefits.
690
-------
The EPA will continue to invest in areas that will support improvement in our ability to value
important benefits and costs and apply scientifically reliable, monetized estimates of effects in our
rulemaking analyses.
9. Enhancing Information Technology Security to Combat Cyber Threats
Summary of Challenge: According to the OIG, the EPA's information security challenges stem
from four key areas: 1) risk management planning, 2) security information and event management
tool implementation, 3) computer security incident response capability and network operation
integration, and 4) computer security incident response capability relationship building. The OIG
believes that management oversight underlies all four areas and is needed to ensure
comprehensive implementation of the information security program throughout the agency,
including offices' execution of the EPA policies, procedures, and practices.
Agency Response: The agency is committed to protecting its information and technology assets.
The EPA understands the threat and pervasiveness of cyber-attacks and is aware of the potential
impact to the agency's mission if information assets are compromised. The agency published a
five-year Information Security Strategic Plan for the Information Security program, as well as
Continuous Monitoring and Risk Management Strategic Plan, to provide the vision and focus for
and to drive the program where the agency believes it will provide appropriate risk based
protection for the EPA's information and information systems. The following summarizes the
agency's progress in addressing growing concerns.
• Established a 30-day maximum number of days that an account can remain inactive before
the system automatically disables the account's technology function in the agency.
• Developed a process to manage annual security assessments, which includes oversight by
the Senior Agency Information Security Official(SAISO).
• Coordinating with the U.S. DHS and the General Services Administration to implement
capabilities under the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program, which includes
vulnerability management.
• Chartered an Information Security Task Force to identify how best to implement SAISO
improvement recommendations for centralizing and consolidating cyber security.
The agency will make every effort to complete corrective actions for all open recommendations
by the originally agreed-upon completion dates, where feasible, by utilizing and refining processes
already in place.
10. EPA Needs to Improve Its Workload Analysis to Accomplish Its Mission Efficiently and
Effectively
Summary of Challenge: The OIG has raised concerns about overall agency and specific program
workforce and workload planning: specifically, that the agency does a poor job of estimating how
many full-time employees are needed to complete particular tasks (workforce planning) and what
skills, people and/or organizations are needed to complete the tasks (workloadplanning). The OIG
asserts the EPA has not collected the data nor developed the analytical methods to measure
691
-------
workload and workforce needs. The OIG recommends the EPA strengthen its workforce and
workload controls, policies, procedures and methods.
Agency Response: The agency is initiating a significant workforce planning effort in conjunction
with Executive Order 13781 and associated OMB guidance. This effort will seek to align capacity
with Administration priorities and identify more efficient practices and organizational structures.
Each program is carefully examining the human capital resources necessary to accomplish
particular tasks. The agency will analyze workload models as part of this effort where and when
we determine such efforts would yield actionable information and offer a good value for the
investment. Given limited resources, the agency must carefully consider how to obtain the best
value at the least cost from any workload analysis. As the OIG acknowledges, there are inherent
difficulties using workload analyses for the highly variable, multi-year, and non-linear activities
that comprise most of the EPA's work. These difficulties limit the utility of detailed FTE-based
workload analyses for broader agency program estimates. The agency has found greater value
using focused analyses, as well as trend and macro-level workload reviews to better understand
program needs. These analyses provide more actionable information as the agency manages its
programs with fewer resources and fewer FTE.
The agency believes that focused, short turn-around, task-driven analyses such as those performed
for grants officer, project officer, IT security officer, and funds control officer duties yield valuable
insights at relatively low cost. These focused analyses can yield a clear understanding of how
managers and staff invest time to perform major tasks. Past short-turnaround analyses have helped
identify major challenges and opportunities, target streamlining and lean efforts, clarify guidance,
prioritize training, and structure other support efforts and initiatives. These will continue to support
the planning for these crosscutting functions.
The EPA also has found that analyzing workload trends using existing available data provides
important insights. For example, during the FY 2016 budget process, the agency examined broad
workload trends to identify major challenges. This analysis looked at overall staffing compared to
long term trends rather than on individual tasks or FTEs, including using statistics showing
increased litigation and legal review requirements. This type of analysis can yield valuable insights
into productivity trends and the workforce necessary for a given workload.
Models focused on current operations and analysis of existing data have provided agency decision-
makers more useable, actionable information than models that attempt to capture broad set of
activities with a finely detailed FTE models. OCFO has found that detailed FTE models created a
sense of false precision, quickly became out-of-date due to changing regulations, requirements,
and systems, and were overly sensitive to relatively small changes in inputs. Reflecting this
experience, the EPA workload analysis guidance in the draft Funds Control Manual provides
information about several types of workload analyses rather than solely discussing FTE workload
models. The guidance also suggests several strategies on how programs can use workload tools to
better understand manage their program, operations and resources. (The updated guidance is
currently with OMB for its review.)
692
-------
The EPA will continue to work with the OIG on its current Superfund workload allocation review
and use workload and trend analyses to better understand agency programs, and as one factor to
help inform budget decisions. Making difficult trade-offs between many different environmental
programs remains one of the agency's senior management's greatest responsibilities and
challenges.
11. EPA Continues to Need Improved Management Oversight to Combat Waste, Fraud and
Abuse
Summary of Challenge: Recent events and activities indicate a possible "culture of complacency "
among some supervisors at the EPA regarding time and attendance controls, employee computer
usage, and real property management. As stewards of taxpayer dollars, the EPA managers must
emphasize and reemphasize the importance of compliance and ethical conduct throughout the
agency and ensure it is embraced at every level of the organization.
Agency Response: The agency believes that enhancements and improved internal controls
implemented over the past fiscal year address concerns raised by OIG. Since FY 2013, the EPA
has made considerable efforts to strengthen internal controls over time and attendance reporting
and employee travel. The agency revised its T&A procedure, which enhanced senior leadership
attention and support to ensure that employees report, review, correct, and attest to the accuracy
of their time promptly in the agency's payroll system. Additionally, the agency continues to audit
100 percent of its travel vouchers prior to payment to confirm all expenses over $75 are verified
by a receipt and expenses are consistent with regulations and policy.
As for concerns regarding segregation of duties for key financial transactions, OIG states that the
agency has not taken steps to ensure the new financial system, Compass, contain an automated
control to ensure personnel could not process financial transactions that are inconsistent with the
agency's policy. The EPA has a continued need to waive the segregation of duties until a systemic
internal control process to prevent the inadvertent processing of financial transactions is
developed. The current waiver process includes effective internal controls, which are reviewed
routinely by management, to detect and prevent fraudulent transactions.
OIG believes the agency's current mindset toward sprinting allows for the storing of large
quantities of printed materials. The agency acknowledges that it has one centralized in-house print
plan approved by the Joint Committee on Printing for which decentralized authorization within
the regions is not applicable. Currently, the agency is updating the Printing Management Manual
(PMM) to provide guidance and direction for printing. The updated manual will outline roles and
responsibilities, include efficient and economical methods for printing, and an inventory
management concept. Additionally, the agency convened a work group, consisting of printing
control officers, to review and recommend updates and/or changes to the PMM roles and
responsibilities. The agency anticipates the updates to the PMM will be completed by 4th Quarter
FY2017.
693
-------
EPA User Fee Program
In FY 2018, the EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs
and proposals are as follows below.
Current Fees: Pesticides
Fees authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1988, as amended
by Public Law 112-177 (PRIA-3), will expire on September 30,2017. If the current draft version
of PRIA-4 passes, the authority would be extended to September 30, 2023.
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee
The Maintenance Fee provides funding for the Reregi strati on and Registration Review programs
and a certain percentage supports the processing of applications involving inert ingredients and
expedited processing of similar applications, such as fast track amendments. In FY 2018, the EPA
expects to collect approximately $31.0 million from this fee program.
If PRIA-4 legislation is not enacted, the EPA's authority to collect maintenance fees will terminate
on September 30, 2017.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the
registration action request is submitted to the EPA, setting specific timeframes for the registration
decision service. This process has introduced new pesticides to the market more quickly. In FY
2018, the EPA expects to collect approximately $17.0 million from this fee program.
If PRIA-4 is not enacted, after September 30, 2019, the regulations in 40 CFR Part 152 Subpart U
that imposes registration fees would apply again and applicants would need to pay these fees.
Moneys collected through these regulations would go to the U.S. Treasury and would not be
available to the EPA.
Current Fees: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
The Pre-Manufacturing Notification (PMN) fee is collected for the review and processing of new
chemical pre-manufacturing notifications submitted to the EPA by the chemical industry. These
fees are paid at the time of submission of the PMN for review by the EPA's Toxic Substances
program. PMN fees are authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act. Fees collected for this
activity are currently deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The EPA estimates that $0.5 million will be
deposited in FY 2018. On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act (P.L. 114-182) was signed into law, amending numerous sections of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), including providing new authority for fees. The rule to require
payment of additional fees is expected to be finalized in FY 2018.
694
-------
• Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee
The Toxic Substances Control Act, Title IV, Section 402(a)(3), mandates the development of a
schedule of fees to cover the costs of administering and enforcing the standards and regulations
for persons operating lead training programs accredited under the Section 402/404 rule and for
lead-based paint contractors certified under this rule. The training programs ensure that lead paint
abatement and renovation professionals are properly trained and certified. Fees collected for this
activity are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The EPA estimates that $4.6 million will be deposited
in FY 2018.
• Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is administered by the Air and Radiation
Program. Fee collections began in August 1992. Initially, this fee was imposed on manufacturers
of light-duty vehicles, light- and heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. In 2004, the EPA
promulgated a rule that updated existing fees and established fees for newly-regulated vehicles
and engines. The fees established for new compliance programs also are paid by manufacturers of
heavy-duty and non-road vehicles and engines, including large diesel and gas equipment
(earthmovers, tractors, forklifts, compressors, etc.), handheld and non-handheld utility engines
(chainsaws, weed-whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors,
watercraft, jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles, all-
terrain vehicles, snowmobiles) for in-use testing and certification. In 2009, the EPA added fees for
evaporative emissions requirements for non-road engines. The EPA intends to apply certification
fees to additional industry sectors as new programs are developed. In FY 2018, the EPA expects
to collect approximately $22 million from this fee program based upon a projection of the original
rulemaking cost study adjusted for inflation.
• WIFIA Program Fees
The FY 2018 Budget requests authorization for the Administrator to collect and obligate fees
established in accordance with Title V, Subtitle C, Sections 5029 and 5030, of Public Law 113-
121, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. These funds shall be deposited
in the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program Account and remain available until
expended. WIFIA fee regulations were promulgated in FY 2017.
Fee Proposals: Other
• Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA Fees
Rule)
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (P.L. 114-
182) was signed into law, amending numerous sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). The amendments provide authority to the agency to establish fees for certain activities
under Sections 4, 5, and 6 of TSCA, as amended, to defray a portion of the costs of administering
these Sections as well as TSCA Section 14. The Act removed the cap that the agency may charge
695
-------
for a pre-manufacturing notification review and provided the EPA with broader authority to
establish a fee designed to collect up to 25 percent of the costs associated with administering TSCA
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 14 (or $25,000,000, whichever is less, during the first three fiscal years
following enactment). The EPA expects to propose a draft TSCA Fee rule in calendar year 2017
and anticipates a final TSCA Fee rule in FY 2018. Fees collected under the TSCA Fees Rule will
be deposited in the TSCA Service Fee Fund. This fee proposal, once finalized, will replace the
existing Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee.
• FIFRA and PRIA Fee Spending Restrictions
Current statutory language in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) restricts what activities the EPA can fund
from collections deposited in the Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund and
PRIA Fund. The budget proposes new statutory language that would ease spending restrictions
related to both the FIFRA pesticide maintenance fees and the PRIA registration fees. Since the
FIFRA fees are mandatory, separate language has been prepared that will be transmitted to the
authorizing committee at a later date. The PRIA fees are discretionary and the proposed language,
similar to the FIFRA mandatory proposal, is included in the Administrative Provisions section.
• Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (Public Law 112-195) provides the
EPA with the authority to establish a program to finance, develop, and operate a system for the
electronic submission of hazardous waste manifests supported by user fees. In accordance with the
Act, the EPA established the e-Manifest program, including the e-Manifest 1-Year final rule in
2014 and ongoing development of the e-Manifest system. In FY 2018, the EPA intends to publish
the final User Fee rule approximately 90 days before national system deployment. Fees will be
implemented once the system is operational (anticipated in June 2018).
The FY 2018 Budget requests an upfront appropriation of $3.67 million from the general fund for
necessary costs to implement the e-Manifest program. In FY 2018, the EPA will collect and deposit
e-Manifest system user fees in the Hazardous Waste Electronic Management System Fund in
accordance with Section 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6939g). The funds the
agency receives in FY 2018 will be credited as offsetting collections and will reimburse the federal
government for its initial appropriation so that the appropriation from the General Fund nets to $0
by the end of the fiscal year. Any excess user fee collections in FY 2018 will be used for necessary
program expenses. In FY 2018, the EPA expects to collect approximately $13.0 million from this
fee program.
696
-------
Working Capital Fund
In FY 2018, the agency will be in its twenty-second year of operation of the Working Capital Fund
(WCF). It is a revolving fund, authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations, where the costs
of goods and services provided are charged to users on a fee-for-service basis. The funds received
are available without fiscal year limitation, to continue operations and to replace capital equipment.
The EPA's WCF was implemented under the authority of Section 403 of the Government
Management Reform Act of 1994 and the EPA's FY 1997 Appropriations Act. Permanent WCF
authority was contained in the agency's FY 1998 Appropriations Act.
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to: (1) be
accountable to agency offices, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress; (2) increase
the efficiency of the administrative services provided to program offices; and (3) increase customer
service and responsiveness. The agency has a WCF board which provides policy and planning
oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF financial position. The Board, chaired by the
Associate Chief Financial Officer, is composed of twenty-three permanent members from the
program and regional offices.
In FY 2018, there are ten agency activities provided under the WCF. These are the agency's
information technology and telecommunications operations and data services, managed by the
Office of Environmental Information; agency postage costs, Cincinnati voice services, certain
minor facilities alterations costing less than $150,000 per project, and background investigations
managed by the Office of Administration and Resource Management; financial and administrative
systems, employee relocations, and a budget formulation system managed by the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer; the agency's continuity of operations site, managed by the Office of Land
and Emergency Management; and regional information technology service and support managed
by Region 8. A new activity for the Research Triangle Park operations and maintenance service
has been proposed for addition in FY 2018.
In FY 2018, the RTP facility operations and maintenance service is being proposed to begin
operations within the WCF. A total of $3.3 million is estimated to be shifted to the WCF,
commensurate with what is being spent for FY 2017. These funds will cover preventative
maintenance inspections, repairs and service calls.
The agency's FY 2018 budget request includes resources for these ten activities in each National
Program Manager's submission, totaling approximately $270 million. These estimated resources
may be adjusted during the year to incorporate any program office's additional service needs
during the operating year. To the extent that these increases are subject to Congressional
reprogramming notifications, the agency will comply with all applicable requirements. In FY
2018, the agency will continue to market its relocation services to other federal agencies in an
effort to deliver high quality services external to the EPA, which will result in lower costs to the
EPA customers.
In FY 2018, there are funding increases for several IT improvements. A total of $26.8 million has
been added to the WCF for continuing cyber security requirements, continuous diagnostic and
mitigation (CDM) program implementation, scheduled personal computer asset replacement,
electronic form workflow enhancements and bandwidth enhancements. These funds are located in
the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations and the IT/Data Management programs.
697
-------
Other funding increases and shifts have been included in the FY 2018 WCF plan that relate to the
necessary telecommunications and computer support needed by every employee. The base costs
for this package of services has increased over the last four years, and funding has been revised to
incorporate these changes, which includes recent increases in cybersecurity investments. As part
of an overall review and rebalancing of these costs, funds have been shifted across program
projects to reflect FTE changes as well.
698
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Acronyms For Statutory Authority
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act
ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act
BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CAIR: Clean Air Interstate Rule
CCA: dinger Cohen Act
CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980)
CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CRA: Civil Rights Act
699
-------
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWA: Clean Water Act (1972)
CWAP: Clean Water Action Plan
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
CWSRF: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
DWSRF: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act
EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act
EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EPAct: Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act
EPAAR: Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (1986)
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
FASA: Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (1994)
700
-------
FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; enacted as amendments to FIFRA.
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1972)
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (1982)
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Act
FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act (1996)
FRA: Federal Register Act
FSA: Food Security Act
FSMA: Food Safety Modernization Act
FTTA: Federal Technology Transfer Act
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA)
GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act
GMRA: Government Management Reform Act
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act (1993)
HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
701
-------
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
IGA: Inspector General Act
IPA: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITMRA: Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995-aka Clinger/Cohen Act
LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region
MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996
ODA: Ocean Dumping Act
OMTR: Open Market Trading Rule
OPA: Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
PBA: Public Building Act
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act
702
-------
PR: Privacy Act
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
PRIA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
PRIEA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (known as PRIA 3)
PRIRA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWTR: Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCA: Tribal Cooperative Agreement
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act
USC: United States Code
703
-------
USTCA: Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act
WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
704
-------
FY 2018 Stag Categorical Program Grants
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(XI000)
State and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103
Air pollution
control
agencies as
defined in
section
302(b) ofthe
CAA
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
PM2.5
monitoring
network and
associated
program costs.
$44,916.0
$41,875.0
$41,875.0
$29,313.0
State and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103
Air pollution
control
agencies as
defined in
section
302(b) ofthe
CAA
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of air
toxics
monitoring.
$6,797.0
$8,959.0
$8,959.0
$6,271.0
State and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103
Air pollution
control
agencies as
defined in
section
302(b) ofthe
CAA
S/L monitoring
procurement
activities in
support of the
NAAQS.
$3,971.0
$3,971.0
$3,971.0
$2,780.0
3 Do not reflect STAG rescissions.
705
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Eligible
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Actuals
Enacted
Annualized
President's
Authorities
Recipients
Dollars
(X1000)
Dollars3
(X1000)
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
Request
(X1000)
State and
CAA, Sections
Air pollution
Carrying out the
$171,211.0
$172,814.0
$172,380.0
$120,666.0
Local Air
103, 105, 106
control
traditional
Section
Section
Section
Quality
agencies as
prevention and
Section
Management
defined in
control
105 grants
105 grants
105 grants
105 grants
section 302(b)
of the CAA;
Multi-
programs
required by the
CAA and
jurisdictional
associated
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
organizations
program support
(non-profit
costs, including
organizations
all monitoring
whose boards
activities,
of directors or
including PM
membership
2.5 monitoring
is made up of
and associated
CAA section
program costs
302(b) agency
(Section 103
officers and
and/or 105);
whose
Coordinating or
mission is to
facilitating a
support the
multi-
continuing
jurisdictional
environmental
approach to
$639.0
$600.0
$420.0
programs of
carrying out the
$600.0
the states);
traditional
Section
Section
Section
Section
Interstate air
quality
prevention and
control
106 grants
106 grants
106 grants
106 grants
control region
programs
designated
pursuant to
required by the
CAA (Sections
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total:
Section 107
103 and 106);
$227,534.0
$228,219.0
$227,785.0
$159,450.0
of the CAA or
Supporting
of
training for
implementing
CAA Section
Section 176A,
302(b) air
or Section
pollution control
184 NOTE:
agency staff
only the
(Sections 103
Ozone
and 105);
Transport
Supporting
Commission
research,
is eligible.
investigative,
and
demonstration
projects
(Section 103).
706
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Sections
103 and 105;
Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in
annual
Appropriations
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/Tribal
College or
University
Conducting air
quality
assessment
activities to
determine a
Tribe's need to
develop a CAA
program;
$9,104.5
Section
103 grants
$8,829.0
Section
103 grants
$8,805.0
Section
103 grants
$6,163.0
Section
103 grants
Acts.
Carrying out
the traditional
prevention and
control
programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program costs;
Supporting
CAA training
for Federally-
recognized
Tribes.
$4,000.0
Section
105 grants
Total:
$13,104.5
$4,000.0
Section
105 grants
Total:
$12,829.0
$4,000.0
Section
105 grants
Total:
$12,805.0
$2,800.0
Section
105 grants
Total:
$8,963.0
Radon
TSCA,
Sections 10
and 306
State
Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Assist in the
development
and
implementation
of programs for
the assessment
and mitigation
of radon.
$8,114.2
$8,051.0
$8,036.0
$0.0
Multipurpose
Grants
P.L. 114-113
State
Agencies,
Tribes
Implementation
of
environmental
programs and
projects that
complement
existing
environmental
program grants.
$20,642.7
$21,000.0
$20,960.0
$0.0
707
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Water Pollution
Control (Section 106)
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate
Agencies
Develop and
carry out
surface and
ground water
pollution
control
programs,
including
NPDES
permits,
TMDLs, WQ
standards,
monitoring,
and NPS
control
activities.
$233,154.4
$230,806.0
$230,367.0
$161,257.0
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section 319)
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 319(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement
EPA-
approved
State and
Tribal
nonpoint
source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects, as
selected by
the state.
$166,177.0
$164,915.0
$164,601.0
$0.0
Wetlands Program
Development
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104
(b)(3); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Non-Profit
Organizations
To develop
new wetland
programs or
enhance
existing
programs for
the protection,
management,
and
restoration of
wetland
resources.
$13,562.2
$14,661.0
$14,633.0
$10,243.0
708
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
SDWA,
Section 1443(a);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Assistance to
implement
and enforce
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations to
ensure the
safety of the
Nation's
drinking
water
resources and
to protect
public health.
$100,104.1
$101,963.0
$101,769.0
$71,238.0
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC)
SDWA, Section
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement
and enforce
regulations
that protect
underground
sources of
drinking
water by
controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection
wells.
$10,053.6
$10,506.0
$10,486.0
$7,340.0
Beaches Protection
BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Local
Governments
Develop and
implement
programs for
monitoring
and
notification of
conditions for
coastal
recreation
waters
adjacent to
beaches or
similar points
of access that
are used by
the public.
$9,487.0
$9,549.0
$9,531.0
$0.0
709
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Hazardous Waste
RCRA,
States, Tribes,
Development
$98,994.1
$99,693.0
$99,503.0
$69,652.0
Financial Assistance
Section 3011;
Intertribal
&
FY 1999
Consortia
Implementati
Appropriations
on of
Act (PL 105-
Hazardous
276); TCA in
Waste
annual
Programs
Appropriations
Acts.
Brownfields
CERCLA, as
amended by the
Small Business
Liability Relief
and Brownfields
Revitalization
Act, Section
128(a) (42
U.S.C. 9628);
GMRA (1990)a;
FGCAA.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Establish and
enhance state
and tribal
response
programs
which will
timely survey
and inventory
brownfields
sites; develop
oversight and
enforcement
authorities to
ensure
response
actions are
protective of
human health
and the
environment;
develop ways
for
communities
to provide
meaningful
opportunities
for public
participation;
and develop
mechanisms
for approval
of a cleanup
plan and
verification
and
certification
that cleanup is
complete.
$48,466.0
$47,745.0
$47,654.0
$33,358.0
710
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Underground Storage
Tanks (UST)
SWDA, Section
2007(f), 42
U.S.C.
6916(f)(2);
EPAct of 2005,
Title XV-
Ethanol and
Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B -
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance,
Sections 1521-
1533, P.L. 109-
58,42 U.S.C.
15801.
States
Provide
funding for
States'
underground
storage tanks
and to support
direct UST
implementatio
n programs.
$1,495.4
$1,498.0
$1,495.0
$0.0
Pesticides Program
Implementation
FIFRA, Sections
20 and 23; the
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 105-
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement the
following
programs
through grants
to States,
$12,285.0
- States
formula
$11,423.0
- States
formula
$11,401.0
- States
formula
$7,712.0
- States
formula
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Tribes,
partners, and
supporters for
implementatio
n of pesticide
programs,
including:
Certification
and Training
Worker
Protection;
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
(ESPP) Field
Activities;
Pesticides in
Water; and
Tribal
Programs.
$556.3
HQ
Programs:
- Tribal
-PREP
$1,278.0
HQ
Programs:
- Tribal
-PREP
$1,276.0
HQ
Programs:
- Tribal
-PREP
- Pollinator
Protection
$1,162.0
HQ
Programs:
- Tribal
-PREP
- Pollinator
Protection
Total:
$12,841.3
Total:
$12,701.0
Total:
$12,677.0
Total:
$8,874.0
711
-------
Grant Title
Eligible
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
Statutory
Actuals
Enacted
Annualized
President's
Authorities
Recipients
Dollars
(X1000)
Dollars3
(X1000)
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
Request
(X1000)
Lead
TSCA, Section
404 (g); FY
2000
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Provide
assistance to
states,
$12,864.0
$12,067.0
$12,044.0
$0.0
Appropriations
territories, the
404(g) State/
404(g) State/
404(g) State/
404(g) State/
Act (P.L. 106-
District of
Tribal
Tribal
Tribal
Tribal
74); TCA in
Columbia,
Certification
Certification
Certification
Certification
annual
and tribes to
Appropriations
develop and
Acts.
implement
authorized
lead-based
$1,830.6
$1,982.0
$1,978.0
$0.0
paint
404(g)
404(g)
404(g)
404(g)
abatement
Direct
Implementati
Direct
Direct
Direct
programs and
authorized
Implementati
on
Implementati
on
Implementati
on
Renovation,
on
Repair, and
Painting
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total:
(RRP)
programs.
$14,694.6
$14,049.0
$14,022.0
$0.0
The EPA
directly
implements
these
programs in
all areas of
the country
that are not
authorized to
do so and will
continue to
operate the
Federal Lead-
based Paint
Program
Database
(FLPP) of
trained and
certified lead-
based paint
professionals.
712
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Toxic Substances
Compliance
TSCA, Sections
28(a) and 404
(g);TCAin
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States,
federally
recognized
Indian Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Territories of
the U.S.
Assist in
developing,
maintaining,
and
implementing
compliance
monitoring
programs for
PCBs,
asbestos, and
Lead Based
Paint. In
addition,
enforcement
actions by: 1)
the Lead
Based Paint
program and
2) States that
obtained a
"waiver"
under the
Asbestos
program.
$5,220.0
$4,919.0
$4,910.0
$3,437.0
Pesticide
Enforcement
FIFRA
§ 23(a)(1); FY
2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States,
Federally
recognized
Indian Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Territories of
the U.S.
Assist with
implementatio
n of
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs.
$17,845.0
$18,050.0
$18,016.0
$11,050.0
713
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange Network
(NEIEN, aka "the
Exchange Network")
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act 2016; P.L.
114-113, EPA
Annual
appropriations;
Paperwork
Reduction Act
Section 3520
TheE-
Government Act
of2002 (Pub.L.
107-347,
116 Stat. 2899,
44 IJ.S.C. § 101,
H.R. 2458/S.
803)
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
RCRA, Section
8001; FIFRA,
Section 20;
TSCA, Sections
10 and 28;
MPRSA,
Section 203;
SDWA, Section
1442; Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended;
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605.
States, U.S.
Territories,
Federally
Recognized
Tribes and
Native
Villages,
Interstate
Agencies,
Tribal
Consortia,
Other
Agencies with
Related
Environmental
Information
Activities.
Helps States,
U.S.
Territories,
Tribes, and
intertribal
consortia
develop the
information
management
and
technology
(IM/IT)
capabilities
they need to
participate in
the Exchange
Network, to
continue and
expand data-
sharing
programs, and
to improve
access to
environmental
information.
$9,696.4
$9,646.0
$9,628.0
$6,739.0
714
-------
Grant Title
Statutory
Authorities
Eligible
Recipients
Eligible Uses
FY 2016
Actuals
Dollars
(X1000)
FY 2016
Enacted
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2017
Annualized
CR
Dollars3
(X1000)
FY 2018
President's
Request
(X1000)
Pollution Prevention
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605; TSCA
Section 10; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Provides
assistance to
States and
State entities
(i.e., colleges
and
universities)
and Federally-
recognized
Tribes and
intertribal
consortia to
deliver
pollution
prevention
technical
assistance to
small and
medium-sized
businesses. A
goal of the
program is to
assist
businesses
and industries
with
identifying
improved
environmental
strategies and
solutions for
reducing
waste at the
source.
$5,417.7
$4,765.0
$4,756.0
$0.0
Tribal General
Assistance Program
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act (42
U.S.C. 4368b);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Tribal
Governments,
Intertribal
Consortia
Plan and
develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
$67,888.7
$65,476.0
$65,352.0
$45,746.0
715
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2018 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Program Projects By Program Area
(Dollars in Thousands)
I V 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
IYes Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CR
Science & Technology
dean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
$8,149.6
$7,793.0
$5,739.0
($2,054.0)
GHG Reporting Program
$8,824.2
$8,003.0
$0.0
($8,003.0)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$6,234.3
$7,453.0
$3,959.0
($3,494.0)
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
$85,613.6
$93,070.0
$76,010.0
($17,060.0)
Subtotal, Clean Air
$108,821.7
$116,319.0
$85,708.0
($30,611.0)
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
$378.9
$172.0
$0.0
($172.0)
Radiation: Protection
$2,064.5
$1,831.0
$0.0
($1,831.0)
Radiation: Response Preparedness
$3,716.5
$3,774.0
$3,339.0
($435.0)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
$260.4
$209.0
$0.0
($209.0)
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
$6,420.3
$5,986.0
$3,339.0
($2,647.0)
Enforcement
Forensics Support
$13,949.7
$13,643.0
$10,444.0
($3,199.0)
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
$9,807.2
$10,497.0
$0.0
($10,497.0)
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
$26,800.2
$26,004.0
$22,597.0
($3,407.0)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
$551.0
$551.0
$500.0
($51.0)
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$37,158.4
$37,052.0
$23,097.0
($13,955.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
$2,892.6
$3,083.0
$2,725.0
($358.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$68,339.0
$130.0
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$10,995.0
$10,995.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$71,332.8
$68,209.0
$79,334.0
$11,125.0
716
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CR
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
$3,772.1
$3,122.0
$2,274.0
($848.0)
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
$1,737.5
$2,324.0
$2,195.0
($129.0)
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
$427.4
$570.0
$527.0
($43.0)
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
$5,937.0
$6,016.0
$4,996.0
($1,020.0)
Research: Air and Energy
Research: Air and Energy
$104,407.9
$91,731.0
$30,592.0
($61,139.0)
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
$114,874.9
$107,230.0
$68,520.0
($38,710.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$154,349.4
$139,709.0
$54,211.0
($85,498.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
$36,007.0
$37,530.0
$22,516.0
($15,014.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Endocrine Disruptors
$15,980.1
$0.0
$10,122.0
$10,122.0
Computational Toxicology
$23,937.4
$0.0
$17,165.0
$17,165.0
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
(other activities)
$53,405.9
$89,158.0
$34,386.0
($54,772.0)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
$93,323.4
$89,158.0
$61,673.0
($27,485.0)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
$129,330.4
$126,688.0
$84,189.0
($42,499.0)
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
$3,975.8
$3,512.0
$3,657.0
$145.0
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
$10,378.5
$14,073.0
$0.0
($14,073.0)
Total, Science & Technology
$763,829.4
$733,251.0
$450,812.0
($282,439.0)
Environmental Program & Management
dean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
$17,343.4
$16,112.0
$12,791.0
($3,321.0)
GHG Reporting Program
$106,864.3
$95,255.0
$13,580.0
($81,675.0)
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
$21,958.0
$22,899.0
$16,653.0
($6,246.0)
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$138,050.2
$124,506.0
$96,456.0
($28,050.0)
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
$5,195.6
$4,906.0
$3,687.0
($1,219.0)
717
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized (,'R
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
$8,907.0
$8,911.0
$0.0
($8,911.0)
Subtotal, Clean Air
$298,318.5
$272,589.0
$143,167.0
($129,422.0)
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
$2,759.3
$2,904.0
$0.0
($2,904.0)
Radiation: Protection
$8,371.0
$8,427.0
$0.0
($8,427.0)
Radiation: Response Preparedness
$2,047.1
$2,545.0
$2,257.0
($288.0)
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
$12,972.9
$13,707.0
$0.0
($13,707.0)
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
$26,150.3
$27,583.0
$2,257.0
($25,326.0)
Brownfields
Brownfields
$24,718.6
$25,544.0
$16,082.0
($9,462.0)
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$103,713.4
$101,472.0
$86,431.0
($15,041.0)
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$174,120.9
$171,051.0
$140,470.0
($30,581.0)
Criminal Enforcement
$47,844.7
$46,225.0
$40,341.0
($5,884.0)
Environmental Justice
$7,347.6
$6,724.0
$0.0
($6,724.0)
NEPA Implementation
$15,761.3
$16,179.0
$13,496.0
($2,683.0)
Subtotal, Enforcement
$245,074.5
$240,179.0
$194,307.0
($45,872.0)
Geographic Programs
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
$77,543.8
$72,861.0
$0.0
($72,861.0)
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
$5,392.3
$4,473.0
$0.0
($4,473.0)
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
$4,395.0
$4,391.0
$0.0
($4,391.0)
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
$3,935.6
$3,932.0
$0.0
($3,932.0)
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
$947.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
S.New England Estuary (SNEE)
$4,975.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Geographic Program: Other (other activities)
$1,460.0
$7,379.0
$0.0
($7,379.0)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
$7,382.0
$7,379.0
$0.0
($7,379.0)
Great Lakes Restoration
$288,091.8
$299,430.0
$0.0
($299,430.0)
Geographic Program: South Florida
$1,733.0
$1,701.0
$0.0
($1,701.0)
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
$4,600.7
$4,810.0
$0.0
($4,810.0)
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
$28,046.3
$27,947.0
$0.0
($27,947.0)
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
$421,120.5
$426,924.0
$0.0
($426,924.0)
718
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized (,'R
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
$4,025.3
$3,870.0
$3,512.0
($358.0)
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
$627.1
$970.0
$0.0
($970.0)
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
$4,987.0
$5,336.0
$4,986.0
($350.0)
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$9,639.4
$10,176.0
$8,498.0
($1,678.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
$15,044.1
$15,289.0
$10,011.0
($5,278.0)
TRI / Right to Know
$13,292.4
$13,856.0
$8,680.0
($5,176.0)
Tribal - Capacity Building
$14,056.3
$14,358.0
$11,731.0
($2,627.0)
Executive Management and Operations
$47,798.4
$46,930.0
$37,106.0
($9,824.0)
Environmental Education
$10,138.8
$8,685.0
$0.0
($8,685.0)
Exchange Network
$17,066.5
$16,984.0
$11,784.0
($5,200.0)
Small Minority Business Assistance
$1,464.0
$1,667.0
$0.0
($1,667.0)
Small Business Ombudsman
$2,378.0
$1,995.0
$1,965.0
($30.0)
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
$6,252.7
$6,535.0
$2,018.0
($4,517.0)
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
$127,491.2
$126,299.0
$83,295.0
($43,004.0)
International Programs
US Mexico Border
$2,913.7
$3,057.0
$0.0
($3,057.0)
International Sources of Pollution
$6,345.0
$6,418.0
$4,051.0
($2,367.0)
Trade and Governance
$6,231.3
$5,896.0
$0.0
($5,896.0)
Subtotal, International Programs
$15,490.0
$15,371.0
$4,051.0
($11,320.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
$27,152.6
$28,132.0
$11,997.0
($16,135.0)
IT / Data Management
$83,883.2
$83,790.0
$70,069.0
($13,721.0)
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
$111,035.8
$111,922.0
$82,066.0
($29,856.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Integrated Environmental Strategies
$13,429.0
$11,469.0
$9,151.0
($2,318.0)
Administrative Law
$4,984.0
$4,765.0
$4,141.0
($624.0)
Alternative Dispute Resolution
$1,442.1
$1,043.0
$0.0
($1,043.0)
Civil Rights Program
$11,216.7
$10,052.0
$8,266.0
($1,786.0)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$49,227.0
$48,473.0
$42,565.0
($5,908.0)
Legal Advice: Support Program
$14,692.6
$15,450.0
$15,548.0
$98.0
Regional Science and Technology
$1,602.1
$1,529.0
$0.0
($1,529.0)
719
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CR
Science Advisory Board
$4,203.8
$3,875.0
$3,567.0
($308.0)
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
$15,218.6
$14,546.0
$15,208.0
$662.0
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
$116,015.9
$111,202.0
$98,446.0
($12,756.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$70,707.8
$72,047.0
$64,709.0
($7,338.0)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$304,456.9
$310,948.0
$301,001.0
($9,947.0)
Acquisition Management
$30,174.3
$30,406.0
$24,978.0
($5,428.0)
Fluman Resources Management
$40,756.0
$43,185.0
$40,512.0
($2,673.0)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
$27,202.6
$25,248.0
$18,564.0
($6,684.0)
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$46,719.0
$46,719.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$473,297.6
$481,834.0
$496,483.0
$14,649.0
Pesticides Licensing
Science Policy and Biotechnology
$1,362.5
$1,172.0
$0.0
($1,172.0)
Pesticides: Protect Fluman Flealth from Pesticide Risk
$57,708.1
$57,699.0
$48,568.0
($9,131.0)
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
$39,651.4
$37,222.0
$31,930.0
($5,292.0)
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
$7,727.5
$6,074.0
$5,028.0
($1,046.0)
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
$106,449.5
$102,167.0
$85,526.0
($16,641.0)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Corrective Action
$37,967.0
$36,860.0
$31,947.0
($4,913.0)
RCRA: Waste Management
$57,022.8
$58,986.0
$41,146.0
($17,840.0)
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
$8,510.8
$8,832.0
$0.0
($8,832.0)
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
$103,500.6
$104,678.0
$73,093.0
($31,585.0)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disruptors
$6,035.4
$7,539.0
$0.0
($7,539.0)
Pollution Prevention Program
$11,982.4
$13,115.0
$0.0
($13,115.0)
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
$56,030.4
$58,443.0
$65,036.0
$6,593.0
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
$13,051.2
$13,250.0
$0.0
($13,250.0)
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
$87,099.4
$92,347.0
$65,036.0
($27,311.0)
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
$11,083.4
$11,273.0
$5,612.0
($5,661.0)
Water: Ecosystems
720
-------
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annuali/x'd C.'R
FY 2018
Pres Bud
2018 Pres Bud
vs. 2017
Annualized (,'R
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
$25,862.3
$26,672.0
$0.0
($26,672.0)
Wetlands
$21,065.5
$21,025.0
$18,115.0
($2,910.0)
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
$46,927.8
$47,697.0
$18,115.0
($29,582.0)
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
$1,779.8
$1,978.0
$0.0
($1,978.0)
Drinking Water Programs
$96,372.2
$96,341.0
$80,044.0
($16,297.0)
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
$98,152.0
$98,319.0
$80,044.0
($18,275.0)
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
$10,757.8
$10,142.0
$0.0
($10,142.0)
Surface Water Protection
$202,080.5
$199,875.0
$174,975.0
($24,900.0)
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
$212,838.3
$210,017.0
$174,975.0
($35,042.0)
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
$12,678.0
$12,676.0
$0.0
($12,676.0)
Total, Environmental Program & Management
$2,650,794.7
$2,630,269.0
$1,717,484.0
($912,785.0)
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
Total, Inspector General
$39,802.3
$41,410.0
$37,475.0
($3,935.0)
Building and Facilities
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
$7,366.2
$6,664.0
$6,176.0
($488.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$37,184.2
$35,573.0
$33,377.0
($2,196.0)
Total, Building and Facilities
$44,550.4
$42,237.0
$39,553.0
($2,684.0)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Indoor Air and Radiation
Radiation: Protection
$2,194.2
$1,981.0
$0.0
($1,981.0)
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
$8,975.4
$9,920.0
$3,900.0
($6,020.0)
721
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
I'res Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized (,'R
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$844.1
$993.0
$605.0
($388.0)
Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
$6,883.7
$7,110.0
$4,161.0
($2,949.0)
Environmental Justice
$681.7
$544.0
$0.0
($544.0)
Forensics Support
$1,739.3
$1,087.0
$708.0
($379.0)
Superfiind: Enforcement
$154,117.5
$150,342.0
$94,418.0
($55,924.0)
Superfond: Federal Facilities Enforcement
$6,217.9
$6,976.0
$0.0
($6,976.0)
Subtotal, Enforcement
$169,640.1
$166,059.0
$99,287.0
($66,772.0)
Homeland Security
Flomeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
$36,411.9
$35,209.0
$16,457.0
($18,752.0)
Flomeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
$833.6
$1,084.0
$542.0
($542.0)
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$37,245.5
$36,293.0
$16,999.0
($19,294.0)
Information Exchange / Outreach
Exchange Network
$1,291.4
$1,325.0
$838.0
($487.0)
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
$6,008.0
$6,071.0
$3,186.0
($2,885.0)
IT / Data Management
$14,968.1
$13,776.0
$8,213.0
($5,563.0)
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
$20,976.1
$19,847.0
$11,399.0
($8,448.0)
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
$486.5
$674.0
$0.0
($674.0)
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$652.4
$577.0
$349.0
($228.0)
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
$1,138.9
$1,251.0
$349.0
($902.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$21,331.2
$22,084.0
$12,226.0
($9,858.0)
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$69,168.0
$74,137.0
$59,072.0
($15,065.0)
Acquisition Management
$22,129.0
$22,418.0
$14,036.0
($8,382.0)
Human Resources Management
$4,908.5
$6,333.0
$4,580.0
($1,753.0)
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
$2,845.0
$2,889.0
$1,591.0
($1,298.0)
Workforce Reshaping
$0.0
$0.0
$10,437.0
$10,437.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$120,381.7
$127,861.0
$101,942.0
($25,919.0)
722
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CR
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CR
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$13,622.3
$14,005.0
$5,655.0
($8,350.0)
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
$2,751.4
$2,838.0
$5,305.0
$2,467.0
Superfund Cleanup
Superfiind: Emergency Response and Removal
$210,668.5
$180,961.0
$147,212.0
($33,749.0)
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
$8,148.1
$7,622.0
$7,216.0
($406.0)
Superfund: Federal Facilities
$21,799.4
$21,085.0
$19,553.0
($1,532.0)
Superfund: Remedial
$539,387.1
$500,048.0
$341,803.0
($158,245.0)
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
$780,003.1
$709,716.0
$515,784.0
($193,932.0)
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
$1,159,064.2
$1,092,089.0
$762,063.0
($330,026.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$758.0
$619.0
$559.0
($60.0)
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$426.0
$423.0
$423.0
$0.0
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$785.2
$782.0
$785.0
$3.0
Acquisition Management
$152.5
$145.0
$138.0
($7.0)
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$1,363.7
$1,350.0
$1,346.0
($4.0)
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
$9,159.3
$9,222.0
$6,364.0
($2,858.0)
LUST Cooperative Agreements
$55,832.9
$54,935.0
$38,840.0
($16,095.0)
LUST Prevention
$26,273.2
$25,321.0
$0.0
($25,321.0)
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
$91,265.4
$89,478.0
$45,204.0
($44,274.0)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$315.5
$319.0
$320.0
$1.0
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$93,702.6
$91,766.0
$47,429.0
($44,337.0)
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
$143.3
$139.0
$124.0
($15.0)
723
-------
KY 2016
Actuals
KY 2017
Annualized CK
KY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CK
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$2,444.0
$2,408.0
$2,266.0
($142.0)
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
$14,553.9
$14,382.0
$12,144.0
($2,238.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$679.6
$583.0
$680.0
$97.0
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$862.0
$663.0
$503.0
($160.0)
Total, Inland Oil Spill Programs
$18,682.8
$18,175.0
$15,717.0
($2,458.0)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
$19,499.9
$19,962.0
$0.0
($19,962.0)
Brownfields Projects
$88,874.4
$79,848.0
$69,000.0
($10,848.0)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
$1,350,884.4
$1,391,237.0
$1,393,887.0
$2,650.0
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
$853,752.7
$961,592.0
$863,233.0
($98,359.0)
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
$10,345.6
$9,981.0
$0.0
($9,981.0)
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
$53,750.5
$49,905.0
$10,000.0
($39,905.0)
Targeted Airshed Grants
$9,934.4
$19,962.0
$0.0
($19,962.0)
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
$2,387,041.9
$2,532,487.0
$2,336,120.0
($196,367.0)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
$166,177.0
$164,601.0
$0.0
($164,601.0)
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS)
$100,104.1
$101,769.0
$71,238.0
($30,531.0)
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
$227,533.6
$227,785.0
$159,450.0
($68,335.0)
Categorical Grant: Radon
$8,114.2
$8,036.0
$0.0
($8,036.0)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
$18,838.3
$0.0
$12,470.0
$12,470.0
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106) (other activities)
$214,316.1
$230,367.0
$148,787.0
($81,580.0)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
$233,154.4
$230,367.0
$161,257.0
($69,110.0)
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
$13,562.2
$14,633.0
$10,243.0
($4,390.0)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
$10,053.6
$10,486.0
$7,340.0
($3,146.0)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
$12,841.3
$12,677.0
$8,874.0
($3,803.0)
724
-------
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Annualized CR
FY 2018
Pres Hud
2018 Pres liud
vs. 2017
Annualized CR
Categorical Grant: Lead
$14,694.6
$14,022.0
$0.0
($14,022.0)
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
$98,994.1
$99,503.0
$69,652.0
($29,851.0)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
$17,845.0
$18,016.0
$11,050.0
($6,966.0)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
$5,417.7
$4,756.0
$0.0
($4,756.0)
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
$5,220.0
$4,910.0
$3,437.0
($1,473.0)
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
$67,888.7
$65,352.0
$45,746.0
($19,606.0)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
$1,495.4
$1,495.0
$0.0
($1,495.0)
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
$13,104.5
$12,805.0
$8,963.0
($3,842.0)
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
$9,696.4
$9,628.0
$6,739.0
($2,889.0)
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
$9,487.0
$9,531.0
$0.0
($9,531.0)
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
$48,465.8
$47,654.0
$33,358.0
($14,296.0)
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants
$20,642.7
$20,960.0
$0.0
($20,960.0)
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
$1,084,492.3
$1,078,986.0
$597,347.0
($481,639.0)
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
$13,302.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$3,484,836.2
$3,611,473.0
$2,933,467.0
($678,006.0)
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
Total, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System
Fund
$2,910.2
$3,667.0
$0.0
($3,667.0)
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Fund
Water Quality Protection
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
Total, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Fund
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
Cancellation of Prior Year Funds
$0.0
($40,000.0)
($369,000.0)
($329,000.0)
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
$8,258,172.8
$8,244,337.0
$5,655,000.0
($2,589,337.0)
Hurricane Sandy Supplemental
$238.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
TOTAL, EPA
$8,258,411.6
$8,244,337.0
$5,655,000.0
($2,589,337.0)
*For ease of comparison, Superfiind transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfiind account.
725
-------
Eliminated/Discontinued Programs
Eliminated Program Projects
Alternative Dispute Resolution (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,720 million, 6.7 FTE)
This program provides alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to the EPA Headquarters, the
EPA Regional Offices, and external stakeholders. This funding level eliminates the centralization
of conflict prevention and ADR program. Programs across the agency may pursue ADR support
services and training individually.
Beach / Fish Programs (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,982 million, 3.8 FTE)
This program provides science, guidance, technical assistance and nationwide information to state,
Tribal, and federal agencies on the human health risks associated with eating locally caught
fish/shellfish or wildlife with excessive levels of contaminants, as well as beach monitoring and
notification programs. The agency will encourage states to continue this work within ongoing core
programs.
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection (FY 2016 Enacted: $9,549 million, 0.0 FTE)
Grants authorized under the Beach Act support continued development and implementation of
coastal recreational water monitoring and public notification programs. After over 17 years of
technical guidance and financial support, state and local governments now have the technical
expertise and procedures to continue beach monitoring without federal support.
Categorical Grant: Lead (FY 2016 Enacted: $14,049 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program provides support to authorized state and Tribal programs that administer training and
certification programs for lead paint professionals and contractors. Lead paint certification will
continue under the Chemical Risk Review Reduction program.
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants (FY 2016 Enacted: $21,000 million, 0.0 FTE)
This program provides grants to states and tribes to assist with the implementation activities that
complement environmental programs. States can continue to fund work through the EPA's core
grant programs and statutes. The agency will work with states to target funds to address their
priorities.
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) (FY 2016 Enacted: $164,915 million, 0.0 FTE)
This program provides grants to assist states and tribes in implementing approved elements of
Nonpoint Source Programs including: regulatory and non-regulatory programs, technical
assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration
projects. The agency will continue to coordinate with the United States Department of Agriculture
on targeting funding where appropriate to address nonpoint sources.
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention (FY 2016 Enacted: $4,765 million, 0.0 FTE)
The Pollution Prevention (P2) program is a tool for advancing environmental stewardship by
federal, state and Tribal governments, businesses, communities and individuals. In FY 2018 the
EPA will focus its resources on core environmental work.
726
-------
Categorical Grant: Radon (FY 2016 Enacted: $8,051 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program provides funding for the development of state radon programs and disseminates
public information and educational materials. The program also provides information on
equipment training, data storage and management, and toll-free hotlines. For over 29 years the
EPA's radon program has provided important guidance and significant funding to help states
establish their own programs.
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,498 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program provides funding for petroleum and hazardous substance release prevention and
detection activities including: compliance assistance, state program approvals, and technical
equipment reviews and approvals. States could elect to maintain core program work with state
resources rather than federal.
Endocrine Disruptors (FY 2016 Enacted: $7,553 million, 8.9 FTE)
The program develops and validates scientific test methods for the routine, ongoing evaluation of
pesticides and other chemicals to determine their potential interference with normal endocrine
system function. The ongoing functions of the program can be absorbed into the pesticides
program.
Environmental Education (FY 2016 Enacted: $8,702 million, 11.1 FTE)
This program promotes delivery of environmental education through science-based methodologies
that promote public engagement. In recognition of the significant guidance and financial support
the EE program has provided to non-profit organizations, local education agencies, universities,
community colleges, and state and local environmental agencies, funding for some of the
environmental stewardship activities could be leveraged at the state or local level.
Environmental Justice (FY 2016 Enacted: $7,282 million, 40.3 FTE)
The program provides support to address environmental and human health concerns in minority,
low-income, Tribal, and other communities. Environmental Justice will continue to be supported
in the work done at the EPA, when applicable. EJ work impacting the entire agency will be
incorporated into future policy work within the Integrated Environmental Strategy program, which
is a part of the EPA's Office of the Administrator
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay (FY 2016 Enacted: $73,000 million, 39.9 FTE)
The program includes the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the EPA, and other federal
partners working together to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay's ecosystem. The EPA will
encourage the six Chesapeake Bay states and Washington D.C. to continue to make progress in
restoring the Bay from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico (FY 2016 Enacted: $4,482 million, 14.3 FTE)
The program is a partnership of the five Gulf states, Gulf coastal communities, citizens,
nongovernmental organizations, and federal agencies working together to initiate cooperative
actions by public and private organizations to achieve specific environmental results. The EPA
will encourage the five Gulf of Mexico states to continue to make progress in restoring the Gulf
of Mexico from within core water programs.
727
-------
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain (FY 2016 Enacted: $4,399 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program creates a pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for protecting the Lake
Champlain Basin. The EPA will encourage New York and Vermont to continue to make progress
in restoring Lake Champlain from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound (FY 2016 Enacted: $3,940 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program supports the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program. The EPA will encourage Long Island
Sound states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Sound from within
core water programs.
Geographic Program: Other (FY 2016 Enacted: $7,393 million, 4.9 FTE)
The program provides funding to develop and implement community-based approaches to mitigate
diffuse sources of pollution and cumulative risk for geographic areas including: Lake
Pontchartrain, Southeastern New England Estuary (SNEE), and the Columbia River Basin. The
EPA will encourage states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring these major
aquatic ecosystems from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: Puget Sound (FY 2016 Enacted: $28,000 million, 6.0 FTE)
The program works to protect and restore the Puget Sound, focusing on environmental activities
consistent with the State of Washington's 2020 Puget Sound Action Agenda. The EPA will
encourage state, tribal, and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Puget Sound
from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay (FY 2016 Enacted: $4,819 million, 1.9 FTE)
The program is aimed at protecting and restoring water quality and ecological health of the San
Francisco Bay estuary through partnerships, interagency coordination, and project grants. The
EPA will encourage the state of California and local entities to continue to make progress in
restoring the San Francisco Bay from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: South Florida (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,704 million, 1.4 FTE)
The program leads special initiatives and planning activities in the South Florida region, which
includes the Everglades and Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem. The EPA will encourage state,
tribal, and local entities to continue to make progress in protecting and restoring sensitive aquatic
ecosystems in South Florida from within core water programs.
Great Lakes Restoration (FY 2016 Enacted: $300,000 million, 71.7 FTE)
The EPA and 16 federal agencies develop and implement a Great Lake Restoration Initiative to
restore and maintain the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The EPA will encourage the eight Great
Lakes states and tribal and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Great Lakes
from within core water programs.
728
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection (FY 2016 Enacted: $11,489 million,
23.1 FTE)
This program involves the EPA activities that help protect the nation's public infrastructure from
threats and intentional acts. Scientific exposure, hazard and risk data on hazardous chemicals is
also provided to local communities to directly support chemical emergency planning, response,
and prevention programs. The most critical program work will be performed in the S&T
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery program.
Indoor Air: Radon Program (FY 2016 Enacted: $3,082 million, 10.6 FTE)
Within this program, the EPA studies the health effects of radon, assesses exposure levels, sets an
action level, provides technical assistance, and advises the public of steps they can take to reduce
exposure to radon. For over 29 years the EPA's radon program has provided important guidance
and significant funding to help states establish their own programs.
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages (FY 2016 Enacted: $20,000 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program supports wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects in Alaska Native and
rural villages. The State Revolving Funds are a source of infrastructure funding that can continue
to fund water system improvements in Alaska.
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border (FY 2016 Enacted: $10,000 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program provides for the planning, design, and construction of water and wastewater treatment
facilities along the U.S. Mexico border. The State Revolving Funds are a source of infrastructure
funding that can continue to fund water system improvements in U.S. communities along the
border.
LUST Prevention (FY 2016 Enacted: $25,369 million, 0.0 FTE)
The program provides resources to states, tribes, territories, and intertribal consortia for their
Underground Storage Tank (UST) programs, with a focus on inspections, enforcement,
development of leak prevention regulations, and other program infrastructure. States could elect
to maintain core program work with state resources rather than federal.
Marine Pollution (FY 2016 Enacted: $10,161 million, 37.4 FTE)
The program funds the implementation of regulatory and support activities relating to ocean
discharges and related marine ecosystem protection activities. The EPA will seek opportunities to
continue to meet statutory mandates through the core national water program.
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways (FY 2016 Enacted: $26,723 million, 43.6 FTE)
The program works to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of estuaries and
coastal watersheds. The EPA will encourage states to continue this work and continue to
implement conservation management plans.
Pollution Prevention Program (FY 2016 Enacted: $13,140 million, 58.1 FTE) The program
promotes environmentally sound business practices and the development of safer (green)
chemicals, technologies, and processes. Partners can continue the best practices that have been
shared through this program and continue efforts aimed at reducing pollution.
729
-------
Radiation: Protection (FY 2016 Enacted: $12,263 million, 59.1 FTE)
This program includes activities for radiation clean up; federal guidance; risk modeling; radiation
air toxics; naturally-occurring radioactive material; radiation waste management; radioactive and
mixed waste operations and measurements, and radiation lab-related infrastructure expenses. The
EPA will explore alternatives to continue to meet its statutory obligation to implement its
regulatory oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (DOE) activities at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility. The EPA also will explore alternatives for its requirement
under the Atomic Energy Act to establish health and environmental protection standards for
exposures to radiation.
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling (FY 2016 Enacted: $8,849 million, 51.0 FTE)
The program establishes a framework for redirecting materials away from disposal and towards
beneficial uses, such as composting food waste, increasing the recycling of electronics, and
reducing waste from federal facilities. The EPA will focus its resources on core environmental
work.
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (FY 2016 Enacted: $13,942 million, 40.7 FTE)
This program addresses indoor environmental asthma triggers, such as secondhand smoke, dust
mites, mold, cockroaches and other pests, household pets, and combustion byproducts through a
variety of outreach, education, training and guidance activities. This is a mature program where
states have technical capacity to continue this work.
Regional Science and Technology (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,532 million, 2.0 FTE)
The program supplies laboratory analysis, field monitoring and sampling, and builds Tribal
capacity for environmental monitoring and assessment. Central approach will be replaced with ad
hoc efforts.
Science Policy and Biotechnology (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,174 million, 5.4 FTE)
The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) organizes and conducts reviews (typically six to ten each
year) by independent, outside scientific experts of science documents, science policies, and/or
science programs that relate to the EPA's pesticide and toxic program activities. Statutory
requirements will be absorbed by the pesticides and toxics programs.
Small Minority Business Assistance (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,670 million, 8.9 FTE)
This program provides technical assistance to small businesses, headquarters, and regional office
employees to ensure that small minority businesses, and minority academic institutions receive a
fair share of the EPA's procurement dollars and grants, where applicable. The agency will integrate
its resources for Small and Disadvantaged Business activities under the Small Business
Ombudsman program.
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund (FY 2016 Enacted: $8,928 million, 0.0 FTE) This
program promotes international compliance with the Montreal Protocol by financing the
incremental cost of converting existing industries in developing countries to cost-effective ozone
friendly technology. The EPA will continue domestic ozone-depleting substances reduction work.
730
-------
Targeted Airshed Grants (FY 2016 Enacted: $20,000 million, 0.0 FTE)
This program offers competitive grants to reduce air pollution in the top five most polluted
nonattainment areas relative to annual ozone or PM2.5. This program is regional in nature, and
affected states can continue to fund work through the EPA's core air grant programs and statutes.
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program (FY 2016 Enacted: $13,275 million, 72.8
FTE)
The program addresses exposure to lead from lead-based paint through regulations, certification,
and training programs and public outreach efforts. Lead paint certifications will continue under
Chemical Risk Review Reduction program. Other forms of lead exposure are addressed through
other targeted programs such as SRF's to replace lead pipes.
Trade and Governance (FY 2016 Enacted: $5,907 million, 18.0 FTE)
This program promotes trade related activities focused on sustaining environmental protection
while growing the economy. In FY 2018 the EPA will focus its resources on core statutory work.
U.S. Mexico Border (FY 2016 Enacted: $3,063 million, 14.7 FTE)
The program addresses environmental protection of the U.S Mexico border in partnership with the
ten (10) Border States, U.S. Tribal government, and the Government of Mexico. This program is
eliminated as part of the effort to limit federal investment in lower priority activities and to focus
resources on core environmental work under core statutes.
Water Quality Research and Support Grants (FY 2016 Enacted: $26,800 million, 4.0 FTE)
The program focuses on the development and application of water quality criteria, the
implementation of watershed management approaches, and the application of technological
options to restore and protect water bodies. States have the ability to develop technical assistance
plans for their water systems using Public Water System Supervision funds and set-asides from
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
Eliminated Sub-Program Projects
Greenhouse Gas Reporting (FY 2016 Enacted: Estimated $66,000 M)
Eliminated 15 voluntary partnership programs as part of the Administration's commitment to
return EPA to its core work. Certification programs like Energy Star have been and continue to be
successfully administered by non-governmental entities like industry associated and consumer
groups. The eliminated sub-programs are as follows:
AgSTAR, Center for Corporate Climate Leadership, Coalbed Methane Outreach Program
(CMOP), Combined Heat & Power Partnership (CHPP), ENERGY STAR, Global
Methane Initiative, GreenChill Partnership, Green Power Partnership (GPP), Landfill
Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), Natural Gas STAR, Responsible Appliance Disposal
Program (RAD), SF6 Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems (EPS), SmartWay,
State and Local Climate Energy Program, and Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership
(VAIP).
Global Change Research (Research: AE) (FY 2016 Enacted: $19,405 million, 47.3 FTE) The
program develops scientific information that supports policy makers, stakeholders, and society at
731
-------
large as they respond to climate change. This elimination prioritizes activities that support
decision-making related to core environmental statutory requirements.
Office of Public Engagement (Executive Management) (FY 2016 Enacted: $1,795 million, 12.0
FTE)
The Office of Public Engagement leads and coordinates EPA programs to promote environmental
literacy.
STAR Research Grants (Research: AE, CSS, SSWR, SHC) (FY 2016 Enacted: $39 058
million, 0.0 FTE)
The Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, funds research grants and graduate fellowships in
environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and
independent peer review. The EPA will prioritize activities that support decision-making related
to core environmental statutory requirements, as opposed to extramural activities. Note that this
total includes $3,533 million of Global Change Research funding.
WaterSense (Surface Water Protection) (FY 2016 Enacted: $3,075 million, 8.0 FTE)
WaterSense is a voluntary partnership program to label water-efficient products as a resource for
helping to reduce water use.
732
-------
Expected Benefits Of E-Government Initiatives
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov initiative benefits the EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location
to publish grant opportunities and application packages, and by providing a single site for the
grants community to apply for grants using common forms, processes and systems. The EPA
believes that the central site raises the visibility of its grants opportunities to a wider diversity of
applicants.
The grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Applicants save
time in searching for agency grant opportunities and in learning the application systems of various
agencies. In order to streamline the application process, the EPA offers Grants.gov application
packages for mandatory State grants (i.e., Continuing Environmental Program Grants).
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$272.0
2017
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$217.0
2018
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$307.0
Integrated Acquisition Environment
The Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) is currently comprised of multiple government-
wide automated applications and/or databases that GSA expects to consolidate into a central
repository called the System for Award Management (SAM) by FY 2021. Until the consolidation
is complete, the EPA continues to leverage both SAM and the legacy systems. Some of the IAE
systems are not linked directly to the EPA's acquisition system, but benefit the agency's
contracting staff and vendor community as stand-alone resources.
The EPA's acquisition system uses data provided by SAM to replace internally maintained vendor
data. Contracting officers can download vendor-provided representation and certification
information allowing vendors to submit this information in one place. Further, the agency utilizes
SAM to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) which
requires agencies to unambiguously identify contract, grant, and loan recipients and determine
parent/child relationship and address information.
The agency also uses SAM to access information essential for contracting actions;
• The Excluded Parties List (EPLS);
• Wage Determination Online (WDOL);
• Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS);
• The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS); and
• The Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.
733
-------
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$245.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$857.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$874.0
USA Jobs
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) USA Jobs simplifies the process of locating and
applying for federal jobs. USA Jobs is a standard job announcement and resume builder website.
It is the one-stop for federal job seekers to search for and apply to positions on-line. This integrated
process benefits citizens by providing a more efficient process to locate and apply for jobs, and
assists federal agencies in hiring top talent in a competitive marketplace. The OPM USA Jobs
initiative has increased job seeker satisfaction with the federal job application process and is
helping the agency to locate highly-qualified candidates and improve response times to applicants.
The agency's integration with USA Jobs eliminates the need for applicants to maintain multiple
user IDs to apply for federal jobs across agencies. The vacancy announcement format has been
improved for easier readability. The system can maintain up to five resumes per applicant, which
allows them to create and store resumes tailored to specific skills. In addition, USA Jobs has a
notification feature that keeps applicants updated on the current status of the application, and
provides a link to the agency website for detailed information. This self-help USA Jobs feature
allows applicants to obtain up-to-date information on the status of their application upon request.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$97.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$116.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$125.0
Human Resources Line of Business
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB)
provides the federal government the infrastructure to support pay-for-performance systems,
modernized HR systems, and the core functionality necessary for the strategic management of
human capital.
The OPM HR LoB offers common solutions that will enable federal departments and agencies to
work more effectively, and provide managers and executives across the federal government an
improved means to meet strategic objectives. The EPA will benefit by supporting an effective
program management activity which evaluates provider performance, customer satisfaction, and
compliance with program goals, on an ongoing basis.
734
-------
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$65.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$65.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$68.0
Geospatial Line of Business
The Geospatial Line of Business is an intergovernmental project to improve the ability of the
public and government to use geospatial information to support the business of government and
facilitate decision-making. This initiative will reduce costs and improve agency operations in
several areas.
With increased access to implement the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Strategic Plan
(NDGA) and many national geospatial data and analytical services into the Geospatial Platform
for federal agencies, their partners, and stakeholders, the EPA uses the Geospatial Platform to
obtain data and services for internal analytical purposes as well as to publish outward-facing
geospatial capabilities to the public.
While the Department of Interior is the managing partner, the EPA continues to be a leader in
developing the vision and operational plans for the implementation of OMB guidance on
Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities and the National
Geospatial Platform which incorporates many national geospatial data and analytical services for
federal agencies, their partners, and stakeholders. The EPA is expected to contribute to operation
of the National Geospatial Platform in FY 2018. The intent is to reduce base costs by providing an
opportunity for the EPA and other agencies to share approaches on procurement consolidation and
include shared services for hosting geospatial data, services and applications.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
$225.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
$225.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
$225.0
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking Line of Business is designed to enhance public access and participation in the
regulatory process through electronic systems; reduce the burden on citizens and businesses in
finding relevant regulations and commenting on proposed rulemaking actions; consolidate
redundant docket systems; and improve agency regulatory processes and the timeliness of
regulatory decisions. The EPA is the managing partner for this Line of Business.
The eRulemaking program's Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) currently supports
more than 178 federal entities including all Cabinet-level Departments and independent
rulemaking agencies, which collectively promulgate approximately 90 percent of all federal
regulations each year. FDMS has simplified the public's participation in the rulemaking process
and made the EPA's rulemaking business processes more accessible as well as transparent. FDMS
provides the EPA's approximately 1,372 active users with a secure, centralized electronic
735
-------
repository for managing the agency's rulemaking development via distributed management of data
and robust role-based user access. The EPA posts regulatory and non-regulatory documents in
Regulations.gov for public viewing, downloading, bookmarking, email notification and
commenting. In FY 2016, the EPA posted 1,176 rules and proposed rules, 1,087 Federal Register
notices, and 31,126 public submissions in Regulations.gov. The EPA also posted 20,753
documents that consisted of supporting and related materials associated with other postings.
Overall, the EPA currently provides public access to 999,131 documents in Regulations.gov.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
$941.0
2017
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
$1,000.0
2018
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
$1,000.0
Financial Management Line of Business
The Financial Management Line of Business (FM LoB) is a multi-agency effort whose goals
include: achieving process improvements and cost savings in the acquisition, development,
implementation, and operation of financial management systems. By incorporating the same FM
LoB-standard processes as those used by central agency systems, interfaces among financial
systems will be streamlined and the quality of information available for decision-making will be
improved.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-1100-24
$96.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-1100-24
$96.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-1100-24
$96.0
Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business
The Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business (BFELoB) allows the EPA and other
agencies to access budget-related resources and services. The agency has the option to implement
LoB-sponsored tools, training and services.
The EPA has benefited from the BFELoB by sharing valuable information on how systems and
software being developed by the LoB have enhanced work processes. This effort has created a
government-only capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the Budget Community
website allows the EPA to share budget information internally, with OMB, and with other federal
agencies. The agency also made contributions to the Human Capital Workgroup, participating in
development of on-line training modules for budget activities - a valuable resource to all agency
budget staff. The LoB has developed the capability to have secure, virtual on-line meetings where
participants can view budget-related presentations from their workspace and participate in the
discussion through a conference line. The LoB provides regularly scheduled symposia as an
additional training forum for EPA budget employees.
736
-------
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-01-04-3200-24
$105.0
2017
020-00-01-01-04-3200-24
$110.0
2018
020-00-01-01-04-3200-24
$110.0
Federal Pkl Bridge
Federal Public Key Infrastructure (FPKI) provides the government with a common infrastructure
to administer digital certificates and public-private key pairs, including the ability to issue,
maintain, and revoke public key certificates. FPKI leverages a security technique called Public
Key Cryptography to authenticate users and data, protect the integrity of transmitted data, and
ensure non-repudiation and confidentiality. The EPA uses this tool to connect agency and
commercial PKIs via a trust framework to then authenticate Personal Identity Verification (PIV)
cards for both physical access into the EPA controlled space and logical access into the agency's
data systems and networks.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2016
020-00-01-16-04-0090-24
$28.0
2017
020-00-01-16-04-0090-24
$30.0
2018
020-00-01-16-04-0090-24
$32.0
737
-------
FY 2018 Administrator's Priorities
The Administrator's priorities are allocated by program project in the FY 2018 President's
Budget with a total of $2,375 million in the Environmental and Program Management Account
and $125 thousand in the Science and Technology Account.
These funds which are set aside for the Administrator's priorities are used to address unforeseen
issues that may arise during the year. These funds are used by the Administrator to support
critical unplanned issues. The amounts shown in the below table will be reallocated as needed, in
accordance with reprogramming limits, to addresses unforeseen issues.
FY 2018 President's Budget Funding for Administrator's Priorities
Appmprhilion
Pro^mm Pmjcii
Dolliii's in
I'lKiiisiinds
EPM
Acquisition Management
$150
EPM
Brownfields
$25
EPM
Civil Enforcement
$150
EPM
Civil Rights Program
$75
EPM
Compliance Monitoring
$100
EPM
Criminal Enforcement
$145
EPM
Drinking Water Programs
$100
EPM
Exchange Network
$75
EPM
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
$100
EPM
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$130
EPM
Human Resources Management
$25
EPM
International Sources of Pollution
$50
EPM
IT / Data Management
$175
EPM
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$100
EPM
Legal Advice: Support Program
$75
EPM
NEPA Implementation
$100
EPM
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
$150
EPM
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
$150
EPM
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
$100
EPM
RCRA: Waste Management
$25
EPM
Science Advisory Board
$100
EPM
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
$100
EPM
Surface Water Protection
$50
EPM
TRI / Right to Know
$75
EPM
Tribal - Capacity Building
$50
S&T
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$25
S&T
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
$50
S&T
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
$50
Tohil
S2.500
738
-------
Proposed FY 2018 Administrative Provisions
To further clarify proposed Administrative Provisions that involve more than a simple annual
extension or propose a modification to an existing provision, the following information is
provided.
Petroleum Set-Aside for Brownfields Projects Grants
Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), the EPA appreciates the flexibility
to use no more than 25 percent of its CERCLA Section 104 (k) funding to address petroleum
contaminated sites. In FY 2018, the EPA continues to request the flexibility to use up to 25 percent
of its CERCLA 104 (k) funding to address petroleum contaminated sites versus an exact 25 percent
identified by statute. Current statutory language requires that exactly 25 percent of Brownfields
Projects grants be provided for petroleum cleanups. The proposed language gives the agency more
flexibility to award grants to the highest-ranking proposals, regardless of the type of funding
requested, while still setting aside money for petroleum cleanups.
$69,000,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including grants, interagency
agreements, and associated program support costs: Provided, That not more than 25 percent of
the amount appropriated to carry out section 104(h) of CERCLA shall be used for site
characterization, assessment, and remediation of facilities described in section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II)
of CERCLA.
Issuing Grants for PM2.5 Monitoring Network Under Clean Air Act Sections 103 and 105
Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), the EPA is directed to use Section
103 of the Clean Air Act to provide grants to states for the PM2.5 monitoring network. Accordingly,
the EPA continues to issue grants to states for the network exclusively under Section 103. The
EPA requests the flexibility to use both Sections 103 and 105 authority under the Clean Air Act to
issue grants to states for the PM2.5 monitoring network.
$597,347,000 shall be for grants, including associated program support costs, to states, federally
recognized tribes, interstate agencies, Tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for
multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control, and abatement and related activities,
including activities pursuant to the provisions setforth under this heading in Public Law 104—134.
and for making grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter
monitoring and data collection activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the
Administrator.
Current statutory language directs the EPA to issue grants in support of the PM2.5 monitoring under
Section 103 of the Clean Air Act. However, given the maturity of the PM2.5 monitoring network,
it is appropriate for the EPA to provide grants to states to fund the network under Section 105 of
the Clean Air Act. The PM2.5 monitoring network is a continuing activity in support of air quality
management, which aligns with authorized activities under Section 105, whereas Section 103 is
intended to fund research, demonstration, and other similar activities. The proposed language gives
the agency more flexibility to award grants under Section 103 and 105 authority. The Clean Air
739
-------
Act Section 105 authority provides for cost-sharing between the EPA and the states with up to 60
percent of costs provided by the EPA.
FIFRA and PRIA Fee Spending Restrictions
Current statutory language in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) restricts what activities the EPA can fund
from collections deposited in the Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund and
PRIA Fund. The budget proposes language to clarify the agency's authority to utilize resources in
the Funds to review existing pesticide registrations for their compliance with current FIFRA
standards, ensuring market access for pesticide registrants. Specifically, fees collected would be
available for the following activities as they relate to pesticide licensing: processing and review of
data submitted in association with a registration, information submitted pursuant to Section 6(a)(2)
of FIFRA, supplemental distributor labels, transfers of registrations and data compensation rights,
additional uses registered by states under Section 24(c) of FIFRA, data compensation petitions,
review of minor amendments and notifications; laboratory support and audits; administrative
support; development of policy and guidance; rulemaking support; information collection
activities; and the portions of salaries related to work in these areas.
The Budget proposes new statutory language that would ease spending restrictions related to both
the FIFRA pesticide maintenance fees and the PRIA registration fees. Since the FIFRA fees are
mandatory, separate language has been prepared that will be transmitted to the authorizing
committee at a later date. The PRIA fees are discretionary and the accompanying proposed
language is as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to the activities specified in section 33 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136w-8), fees collected
in this and prior fiscal years, under such section, shall be available for the following activities as
they relate to pesticide licensing: processing and review of data submitted in association with a
registration, information submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA, supplemental distributor
labels, transfers of registrations and data compensation rights, additional uses registered by States
under section 24(c) of FIFRA, data compensation petitions, review of minor amendments, and
notifications; laboratory support and audits; administrative support; development of policy and
guidance; rulemaking support; information collection activities; and the portions of salaries
related to work in these areas.
740
-------
Attorney Fee And Cost Payments Obligated In FY 2016 Under Equal Access For Justice Act (EAJA)
as a Result of Defensive Environmental Litigations under Environmental Statutes
Date of
Final Fee
Agreement
or Court
Disposition
Case Name
Court
Case
Number
Judge
Case
Disposition
Amount
of Fees
and/or
Costs
Paid
Source of
Funds
Was
Amount
Negotiated
or Court
Ordered?
Recipients
Nature of Case
03/07/2016
Hall &
Associates v.
EPA
US District
Court for
the District
of
Columbia
15-286
RBW
Reggie B.
Walton
Settlement
Ordered
$41,447
EPA
Appropriations
Court
ordered
after
litigation of
fees
Hall &
Associates
Alleged violation of
Freedom of Information
Act
06/02/2016
Fond du Lac
Band of Lake
Superior
Chippewa v.
EPA
US District
Court for
the District
of
Minnesota
13-1324
(JRT/LIB)
John R.
Tunheim
Settlement
Agreement
$11,875
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
Fond du Lac
Band of Lake
Superior
Chippewa
Plaintiff challenged the
EPA's approval of site
specific revisions to
Minnesota's water
quality standards for
works relating to
discharges from a facility
in Hoyt Lakes
Minnesota.
06/02/2016
Minnesota
Center for
Environmenta
1 Advocacy v.
EPA
US District
Court for
the District
of
Minnesota
13-1393
(JRT/LIB)
John R.
Tunheim
Settlement
Agreement
$12,080
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
Minnesota
Center for
Environmental
Advocacy
Plaintiff challenged the
EPA's approval of site
specific revisions to
Minnesota's water
quality standards for
works relating to
discharges from a facility
in Hoyt Lakes
Minnesota.
06/02/2016
WaterLegacy
v. EPA
US District
Court for
the District
of
Minnesota
13-1323
(JRT/LIB)
John R.
Tunheim
Settlement
Agreement
$19,800
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
WaterLegacy
Plaintiff challenged the
EPA's approval of site
specific revisions to
Minnesota's water
quality standards for
works relating to
discharges from a facility
in Hoyt Lakes
Minnesota.
741
-------
Date of
Final Fee
Agreement
or Court
Disposition
Case Name
Court
Case
Number
Judge
Case
Disposition
Amount
of Fees
and/or
Costs
Paid
Source of
Funds
Was
Amount
Negotiated
or Court
Ordered?
Recipients
Nature of Case
06/02/2016
Grand
Portage Band
of Lake
Superior
Chippewa v.
EPA
US District
Court for
the District
of
Minnesota
13-1324
(JRT/LIB)
John R.
Tunheim
Settlement
Agreement
$9,660
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
Grand Portage
Band of Lake
Superior
Chippewa
Plaintiff challenged the
EPA's approval of site
specific revisions to
Minnesota's water
quality standards for
works relating to
discharges from a facility
in Hoyt Lakes
Minnesota.
06/07/2016
Northwest
Environmenta
1 Advocates v.
EPA
US District
Court, for
the District
of Oregon
C-3:15-cv-
01151-HZ
Marco A.
Hernandez
Settlement
Agreement
$26,000
EPA
Appropriations
Court
Ordered
Settlement
Earthrise Law
Center
Plaintiff challenged the
EPA's approval of
Idaho's water quality
criteria for arsenic.
08/08/2016
Pesticide
Action
Network
North
America, et al
v. EPA
US Court
of Appeals
for the 9th
Circuit
14-72794
O'Scannlain,
Tashima and
McKeown
Mandamus
petition
granted
$75,000
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
Pesticide
Action
Network North
America, et al
Plaintiffs petitioned to
revoke all tolerances and
cancel all registrations
for the pesticide
chlorpyrifos.
09/23/2016
In re Idaho
Conservation
League, et al
US Court
of Appeals,
District of
Columbia
Circuit
Court
14-1149
Millett
Rogers
Settlement
Agreement
$127,981
EPA
Appropriations
Negotiated
Settlement
Agreement
Idaho
Conservation
League,
Earthworks,
Sierra Club,
Amigos
Bravo s, Great
Basin
Resource
Watch and
Communities
for a Better
Environment
Petition for Writ of
Mandamus
742
-------
Fiscal Year 2018: Consolidations, Realignments, Or Other Transfers Of Resources
This table shows consolidations, realignments, or other transfers of resources and personnel from one program/project to another in
order to clearly illustrate a transfer of FY 2018 resources (Dollars in T
lousands).
Program/ Project
Total I' ll ml
Transferred
l-rom:
in:
Transferred
from:
Total l-'und
Transferred
To:
III.
Transferred
To:
Purpose
SF: Audits, Evaluation,
and Investigations
($1,000)
(6.4)
This realignment is a shift in resources from the
Superfund account to the IG Management
account in order to ensure adequate resources for
the OIG's high risk audits, evaluations, and
investigations.
IG: Audits, Evaluation,
and Investigations
$1,000
6.4
SF: Superfund Federal
Facilities Enforcement
($4,450)
(26.7)
This transfer merges the Superfund Federal
Facility Enforcement program into the Superfund
Enforcement program to optimize resources of
the two programs.
SF: Superfund
Enforcement
$4,450
26.7
S&T: Human Health Risk
Assessment
($2,964)
(15.2)
This realignment shifts resources for the
Integrated Risk Information System into the
Superfund program to support site
characterization and cleanup.
SF: Human Health Risk
Assessment
$2,964
15.2
743
-------
EPA Budget By National Program Manager And Major Office
1-^ 2017 Aiiiiu;ili/.i'(l (onlinuin** Resolution
|-^ 20IS IVi'siriuil liud^cl
\l'\l
Miijur-oniiT
l';i\ (Sk)
(M\)
1 iiliil (Sk)
1 1
l';i\
(Sk
(Sk)
1 <>|;il (Sk)
1 1 1
OA
. 'ice
$3,555.4
$547.1
$4,102.5
23.8
$2,803.2
$515.0
$3,318.2
17.1
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
$7,227.6
$219.3
$7,446.8
51.6
$6,622.2
$206.0
$6,828.2
40.3
Office of Public Affairs
$5,715.6
$156.5
$5,872.1
38.9
$5,011.9
$147.0
$5,158.9
30.5
Office of Public Engagement
$1,763.4
$0.0
$1,763.4
12.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Policy
$23,424.5
$3,973.7
$27,398.2
140.9
$23,515.4
$3,358.0
$26,873.4
124.5
Children's Health Protection
$2,470.8
$2,951.8
$5,422.6
15.4
$936.0
$539.0
$1,475.0
4.9
Environmental Education
$859.6
$7,597.2
$8,456.8
6.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Civil Rights
$5,175.3
$1,085.8
$6,261.1
36.6
$2,987.1
$413.0
$3,400.1
18.5
Executive Secretariat
$2,145.6
$44.7
$2,190.3
14.6
$1,806.1
$42.0
$1,848.1
11.0
Executive Services
$2,779.2
$3,094.4
$5,873.7
18.9
$2,502.3
$170.0
$2,672.3
14.9
Homeland Security
$1,910.8
$431.1
$2,341.9
9.7
$2,039.5
$305.0
$2,344.5
9.3
Science Advisory Board
$3,129.9
$685.5
$3,815.5
21.6
$3,521.0
$104.0
$3,625.0
18.7
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
$1,713.3
$1,131.5
$2,844.9
11.3
$475.3
$650.0
$1,125.3
2.4
Regional Resources
$26,694.9
$2,845.4
$29,540.3
190.9
$21,142.9
$1,712.0
$22,854.9
130.6
TOTA
$88,566.0
$24,764.0
$113,330.0
592.3
$73,363.0
$8,161.0
$81,524.0
422.7
OAR
Immediate Office
$10,150.6
$11,621.6
$21,772.2
62.5
$7,741.0
$5,509.3
$13,250.4
42.7
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
$51,036.3
$18,751.4
$69,787.7
349.6
$39,829.9
$8,553.6
$48,383.5
240.7
Office of Atmospheric Programs
$36,572.2
$75,752.7
$112,324.9
233.7
$21,226.1
$12,488.2
$33,714.4
117.4
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
$52,459.0
$55,481.2
$107,940.2
353.2
$50,858.3
$25,253.6
$76,111.9
304.3
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
$22,482.1
$15,718.1
$38,200.2
144.8
$7,938.8
$3,743.6
$11,682.4
47.0
Regional Resources
$83,900.9
$342,186.9
$426,087.8
604.8
$63,762.9
$182,434.7
$246,197.5
405.3
TOTA
$256,601.0
$519,512.0
$776,113.0
1,748.6
$191,357.0
$237,983.0
$429,340.0
1,157.4
OARM
Immediate Office
$5,900.9
$24,365.3
$30,266.2
45.0
$6,387.3
$18,609.4
$24,996.7
37.0
Administrative Law Judges
$2,302.0
$231.3
$2,533.3
13.5
$2,209.5
$33.0
$2,242.6
12.5
Environmental Appeals Board
$2,102.8
$205.5
$2,308.3
12.3
$1,998.1
$29.0
$2,027.1
11.3
Office of Acquisition Management
$30,968.8
$10,065.0
$41,033.8
216.0
$24,979.6
$6,474.5
$31,454.1
158.8
Office of Administration
$17,744.2
$331,955.8
$349,700.1
98.8
$18,528.4
$317,469.5
$335,997.9
85.6
Office of Human Resources
$19,251.5
$10,474.0
$29,725.5
100.9
$19,923.1
$6,919.0
$26,842.0
88.6
Office of Grants & Debarment
$10,477.4
$5,845.6
$16,323.0
73.0
$8,062.5
$3,917.5
$11,980.0
49.0
OARM RTP
$9,969.3
$30,589.2
$40,558.4
84.9
$9,561.3
$30,841.5
$40,402.8
78.9
OARM Cincinnati Office
$9,479.4
$15,493.6
$24,973.0
76.7
$9,883.1
$15,600.0
$25,483.1
70.5
Regional Resources
$53,985.8
$42,957.5
$96,943.3
358.2
$45,571.1
$33,543.6
$79,114.7
267.0
TOTA
$162,182.0
$472,183.0
$634,365.0
1,079.3
$147,104.0
$433,437.0
$580,541.0
859.2
744
-------
1-^ 2017 Aiiiiu;ili/.i'(l (onlinuin** Resolution
|-^ 20IS IVi'siriuil liud^cl
\l'\l
\l;ijul Olllir
l';i\ (Sk)
Niill-l'siJ (Sl\)
1 n|;il (Sk)
1 1
l';i\
(Sk
Nnil-Psij (Sk)
1 <>|;|| (Sk)
1 1 1
OCFO
Immediate Office
$1,475.6
$2,412.3
$3,887.9
10.5
$1,731.0
$553.9
$2,284.9
11.4
Center for Environmental Finance
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Budget
$5,579.3
$2,493.9
$8,073.2
39.7
$5,770.7
$1,779.2
$7,549.9
38.0
Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability
$3,401.0
$453.5
$3,854.5
24.2
$3,264.4
$356.2
$3,620.7
21.5
Office of Financial Management
$6,155.5
$724.3
$6,879.9
43.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Technology Solutions
$5,045.3
$22,979.9
$28,025.2
35.9
$5,999.0
$21,506.1
$27,505.1
39.5
Office of Financial Services
$19,014.7
$2,408.8
$21,423.5
135.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Resource and Information Management
$1,784.8
$1,564.4
$3,349.2
12.7
$1,366.7
$858.0
$2,224.7
9.0
Office of the Controller
$18,284.7
$2,028.1
$20,312.8
120.4
OCFO eEnterprise
$758.6
$300.5
$1,059.1
4.0
$621.2
$300.0
$921.3
3.5
Regional Resources
$27,706.1
$1,692.5
$29,398.6
215.7
$24,928.3
$1,238.3
$26,166.6
168.2
TOTA
$70,921.0
$35,030.0
$105,951.0
521.8
$61,966.0
$28,620.0
$90,586.0
411.5
OCSPP
Immediate Office
$5,500.5
$2,197.4
$7,697.8
37.2
$5,618.1
$771.1
$6,389.2
30.5
Office of Pesticide Programs
$80,954.0
$15,498.7
$96,452.6
509.9
$73,856.8
$3,201.2
$77,058.0
436.9
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
$48,303.1
$27,070.0
$75,373.1
293.0
$33,266.0
$35,234.9
$68,501.0
197.8
Office of Science Coordination and Policy
$3,307.0
$6,232.3
$9,539.2
19.7
$950.1
$13.1
$963.2
4.9
Regional Resources
$20,208.5
$33,014.8
$53,223.2
151.2
$11,576.9
$8,583.7
$20,160.7
77.2
TOTA
$158,273.0
$84,013.0
$242,286.0
1,011.0
$125,268.0
$47,804.0
$173,072.0
747.3
OECA
Immediate Office
$7,913.1
$2,661.6
$10,574.7
52.9
$6,618.2
$1,234.4
$7,852.7
35.7
Office of Civil Enforcement
$22,848.8
$3,083.7
$25,932.5
129.3
$18,832.3
$4,379.2
$23,211.5
98.9
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
$56,699.6
$7,383.2
$64,082.8
325.1
$48,050.8
$9,687.0
$57,737.7
240.1
Office of Compliance
$19,902.4
$18,006.5
$37,909.0
127.9
$18,153.5
$28,081.2
$46,234.7
104.6
Office of Environmental Justice
$2,735.6
$1,861.5
$4,597.2
20.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Federal Activities
$3,915.0
$611.1
$4,526.1
24.2
$3,315.3
$613.7
$3,929.1
18.3
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
$2,559.5
$574.3
$3,133.9
14.7
$793.0
$207.6
$1,000.6
4.6
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
$11,685.6
$26,183.5
$37,869.1
69.0
$8,857.2
$2,794.8
$11,652.0
48.3
Regional Resources
$312,094.2
$43,886.6
$355,980.8
2,123.9
$252,270.7
$15,111.1
$267,381.8
1,580.6
TOTA
$440,354.0
$104,252.0
$544,606.0
2,887.7
$356,891.0
$62,109.0
$419,000.0
2,131.1
OEI
Office of the Chief Information Officer
$2,667.0
$3,633.0
$6,300.0
16.1
$2,519.5
$1,466.9
$3,986.5
13.8
Office of Business Operations & Services
$6,236.0
$3,575.0
$9,811.0
38.4
$5,890.9
$2,033.9
$7,924.8
32.8
Office of Digital Services & Technical Architecture
$4,317.0
$2,521.0
$6,838.0
26.9
$4,077.5
$1,729.8
$5,807.3
22.7
Office of Enterprise Information Programs
$7,495.0
$8,411.0
$15,906.0
48.0
$7,079.4
$5,770.5
$12,849.8
39.4
Office of Information Management
$10,746.0
$34,345.0
$45,091.0
64.8
$10,727.8
$21,078.1
$31,806.0
58.5
Office of Customer Advocacy, Policy & Portfolio Management
$5,877.0
$3,166.0
$9,043.0
36.7
$5,551.2
$2,172.3
$7,723.5
30.9
Office of Information Security & Privacy
$2,497.0
$31,473.0
$33,970.0
15.3
$2,580.1
$13,155.4
$15,735.5
13.9
Office of Information Technology Operations
$820.0
$3,621.0
$4,441.0
4.6
$791.3
$2,483.4
$3,274.7
4.0
Regional Resources
$21,850.0
$17,493.0
$39,343.0
153.4
$19,565.3
$12,056.7
$31,621.9
126.2
TOTA
$62,505.0
$108,238.0
$170,743.0
404.2
$58,783.0
$61,947.0
$120,730.0
342.2
745
-------
1-^ 2017 Aiiiiu;ili/.i'(l (onlinuin** Resolution
|-^ 20IS IVi'siriuil liud^cl
\l'\l
\l;ijul Olllir
l';i\ (Sk)
Niill-l'siJ (Sl\)
1 n|;il (Sk)
1 1
l';i\
(Sk
Nnil-Psij (Sk)
1 <>|;|| (Sk)
1 1 1
OGC
Immediate Office
$2,382.7
$26.5
$2,409.1
12.8
$1,674.0
$38.0
$1,712.0
8.7
Air and Radiation Law Office
$8,839.6
$11.8
$8,851.5
50.3
$6,551.7
$17.0
$6,568.7
33.8
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office
$3,806.4
$11.1
$3,817.5
20.4
$3,430.3
$16.0
$3,446.3
17.7
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
$2,598.8
$17.4
$2,616.2
13.7
$2,039.4
$25.0
$2,064.4
10.4
Water Law Office
$4,002.2
$142.8
$4,145.0
21.7
$3,371.6
$10.0
$3,381.6
17.4
Civil Rights - Title VI
$1,418.6
$341.0
$1,759.6
9.0
Other Legal Support
$15,936.9
$1,110.4
$17,047.3
98.9
$15,818.2
$2,170.0
$17,988.2
84.0
Regional Resources
$27,437.3
$535.0
$27,972.3
158.0
$23,745.3
$953.0
$24,698.3
127.4
TOTA
$65,004.0
$1,855.0
$66,859.0
375.8
$58,049.0
$3,570.0
$61,619.0
308.4
OIG
Immediate Office
$577.5
$234.7
$812.2
3.2
$659.0
$135.0
$794.0
3.0
Office of Audit
$12,262.6
$876.6
$13,139.2
92.2
$10,321.0
$506.0
$10,827.0
61.9
Office of Congressional, Public Affairs and Management
$2,887.9
$96.6
$2,984.6
19.1
$2,431.0
$56.0
$2,487.0
12.8
Office of Counsel
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-
Office of Chief of Staff
$3,018.6
$1,580.7
$4,599.3
22.3
$2,540.0
$912.0
$3,452.0
15.0
Office of Investigations
$10,307.5
$1,905.3
$12,212.9
66.8
$8,675.0
$1,100.0
$9,775.0
44.7
Office of Mission Systems
$3,421.1
$1,297.8
$4,719.0
22.3
$2,706.0
$749.0
$3,455.0
14.1
Office of Program Evaluation
$11,951.7
$911.2
$12,862.9
92.2
$10,059.0
$526.0
$10,585.0
61.9
TOTA
$44,427.0
$6,903.0
$51,330.0
318.1
$37,391.0
$3,984.0
$41,375.0
213.4
OITA
Immediate Office
$1,058.9
$54.8
$1,113.7
6.0
$368.4
$46.0
$414.4
2.0
Office of Regional and Bilateral Affairs
$3,725.8
$2,639.6
$6,365.4
23.7
$922.6
$1,080.6
$2,003.1
5.0
Office of Global Affairs and Policy
$3,029.3
$219.1
$3,248.5
18.6
$922.6
$85.0
$1,007.6
5.0
Office of Management and International Services
$1,896.5
$861.6
$2,758.1
13.0
$737.8
$504.3
$1,242.1
4.0
American Indian Environmental Office
$2,803.8
$853.6
$3,657.4
19.0
$2,570.7
$259.1
$2,829.8
14.3
Regional Resources
$11,290.6
$66,647.2
$77,937.8
78.5
$9,318.0
$46,118.0
$55,436.0
55.9
TOTA
$23,805.0
$71,276.0
$95,081.0
158.8
$14,840.0
$48,093.0
$62,933.0
86.2
OLEM
Immediate Office
$7,855.3
$5,021.9
$12,877.3
45.2
$5,505.1
$3,643.3
$9,148.3
29.5
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
$2,235.6
$880.3
$3,116.0
13.2
$2,202.0
$799.3
$3,001.3
12.5
Office of Communication, Partnership, and Analysis
$2,184.4
$1,531.2
$3,715.6
15.3
$1,979.1
$1,045.4
$3,024.5
10.8
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
$25,094.3
$69,055.7
$94,150.0
147.0
$23,894.2
$39,039.5
$62,933.7
134.9
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
$25,428.0
$11,705.6
$37,133.6
165.9
$15,641.2
$6,796.4
$22,437.6
92.3
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
$4,079.2
$2,840.8
$6,920.0
25.5
$2,971.8
$261.1
$3,232.9
16.3
Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
$2,819.1
$12,570.2
$15,389.2
19.5
$2,089.6
$11,128.9
$13,218.4
12.1
Office of Emergency Management
$11,816.8
$30,928.8
$42,745.6
69.1
$10,198.0
$16,333.7
$26,531.7
55.1
Regional Resources
$269,016.3
$749,822.3
$1,018,838.6
1,814.8
$234,550.0
$494,702.6
$729,252.6
1,486.8
TOTA
$350,529.0
$884,357.0
$1,234,886.0
2,315.5
$299,031.0
$573,750.0
$872,781.0
1,850.3
746
-------
FY 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution
FY 2018 President Budget
NPM
Major Office
Pay (SK)
Non-Pay (SK)
Total (SK)
FT
Pay
(SK
Non-Pay (SK)
Total (SK)
FTE
OKI)
ORD Headquarters
$35,537.3
$55,737.5
$91,274.8
318.3
$35,582.1
$36,582.0
$72,164.1
212.9
National Center for Environmental Research
$9,177.4
$54,257.8
$63,435.2
52.7
$648.5
$2,162.0
$2,810.5
3.9
National Exposure Research Laboratory
$51,597.5
$28,697.2
$80,294.7
310.8
$34,164.7
$11,869.0
$46,033.7
204.4
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
$73,782.6
$44,962.6
$118,745.2
473.7
$53,065.3
$21,129.0
$74,194.3
317.8
National Homeland Security Research Center
$7,093.1
$12,389.4
$19,482.5
41.7
$4,240.6
$5,372.0
$9,612.6
25.5
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
$43,184.3
$28,955.2
$72,139.5
272.0
$29,161.5
$11,121.0
$40,282.5
175.4
Office of the Science Advisor
$3,469.0
$3,274.3
$6,743.2
18.0
$2,112.4
$1,484.0
$3,596.4
12.7
National Center for Computational Toxicology
$5,477.3
$9,657.2
$15,134.5
35.5
$4,108.6
$3,091.0
$7,199.6
24.7
National Center for Environmental Assessment
$30,575.4
$15,037.9
$45,613.3
181.2
$17,036.4
$3,872.0
$20,908.4
102.5
TOT
$259,894.0
$252,969.0
$512,863.0
1,703.9
$180,120.0
$96,682.0
$276,802.0
1,079.8
OW
Immediate Office
$10,952.9
$6,127.9
$17,080.8
66.4
$10,317.6
$3,658.3
$13,975.9
59.1
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
$25,881.0
$41,262.2
$67,143.1
167.0
$21,952.4
$14,555.1
$36,507.5
128.7
Office of Science and Technology
$19,052.2
$17,027.1
$36,079.4
114.0
$17,502.5
$9,489.7
$26,992.2
101.5
Office of Wastewater Management
$18,239.8
$17,247.0
$35,486.9
119.7
$19,655.8
$24,375.9
$44,031.7
115.6
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
$18,352.1
$23,571.2
$41,923.3
114.8
$13,039.1
$9,505.7
$22,544.8
73.2
Regional Resources
$193,628.0
$3,347,580.5
$3,541,208.5
1,351.8
$159,241.6
$2,510,403.2
$2,669,644.8
1,034.3
TOT
$286,106.0
$3,452,816.0
$3,738,922.0
1,933.8
$241,709.0
$2,571,988.0
$2,813,697.0
1,512.4
Subtotal Agency Resources
$2,269,167.0
$6,018,168.0
$8,287,335.0
15,050.8
$1,845,872.0
$4,178,128.0
$6,024,000.0
11,121.9
Less Rescission of Prior Year Funds
($40,000.0)
($369,000.0)
Reimbursable FTE
365.0
489.5
Total Agency Resources
$2,269,167.0
$6,018,168.0
$8,247,335.0
15,415.8
$1,845,872.0
$4,178,128.0
$5,655,000.0
11,611.4
747
-------
IG's Comments On The FY 2018 President's Budget
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION *SENCĄ
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APIB2W
The Honorable Mick Mulvaney
Director
The Office nf Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, 1>,C, 20503
Dear Director Mulvaney:
As you are aware, the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U,S,C. app. 3„ § 6(gX3)(E):
slates the following:
The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government
submitted to Congress—any comments of the affected Inspector General with
respect to the proposal if the Inspector General concludes that the budget
submitted by the President would substantially Inhibit the Inspector General
Horn performing the duties of the office.
The proposed fiscal year 2011 budget creates a significant challenge for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector General (OKI) and its abOMy to accomplish to
agency oversight mission. The President's budget proposes a 30-percent reduction to the OIG's payroll
account. A budget cut of this inaptitude would destabilize the OKI and have an immediate negative
impact on. the OIG's production capacity, As sod), I do not agree with the proposed OlO appropriations
cut, and argue that such, a cut would substantially inhibit the GIG front performing the duties of the
office, including mandatory OIG responsibilities explicitly required by federal law.
The OIG's primary deliverables are audits, program evaluations, and criminal and employee
misconduct investigations. All these activities are labor intensive. A 30-percent reduction to the
OIG's payroll account will virtually eliminate the OIG's ability to perform discretionary audits and
program evaluations, These services assist EPA leadership, taxpayers and Congress; help to bold
the agency accountable; and arc valuable management tools that represent a substantial source of
the OIG's ability to produce a positive return on investment to taxpayers.
Moreover, a 30-percent budget reduction would deprive the OIG's investigative team of its ability
to timely respond to criminal activity subject to the OIG's jurisdiction, and irajmir our ability to
comply with the Inspector General Act. The !G Act requires each Inspector General to report,
expeditiously to the U.S. Attorney General whenever the Inspector General his reasonable pounds to
believe that there has been a violation of federal criminal law. Further, the OIG's mandatory
investigations and audit activities arc not performed by any other entity within the EPA. As such, if
the OIG is not able to timely respond, there will be no timely response. This creates an
unacceptable risk to the agency and to taxpayers" investment
748
-------
Additionally, the proposed budget will negatively impact the OIG's abiliiy to retain and recruit
highly skilled staff. As highlighted above, the OIG's work is labor intensive. In Ihe long run. not
being able to retain and recruit highly skilled staff will undermine (he effectiveness of the HPA
OIG. This outcome may manifest itself by negatively impacting the OTG's ability to serve as an
effective deterrent to potential mismanagement and misconduct In short, lens oversight may lead to
less concern about being discovered, and encourage behavior that otherwise would not have been
contemplated.
The OIG historically produces t significant positive dollar return on investment For example, the
OIG had a return on investment of 734 percent in fiscal year 2014; 1,656 percent in 2015; and 2,098
percent in 2016, This return on investment saved taxpayers millions of dollars compared to the amount
appropriated and spent by the 01(3 to carry out its functions; most of which are statutorily mandated.
In addition to the significant return cm dollar' investment, the OIG makes critical recommendations to
assist the EPA in. implementing Ms statutoty mandate to protect human, health and the environment
During times of significant budget pressures, we believe that OIG oversight is most needed and.
produces the greatest results. Taking money away from the OIG will have a negative impact on
taxpayers* return on investment, as well as siipfficaifiy redu.ee oversight of EPA papains that
protect human health and the environment If the OIG is not able to fully perfosn tills important
oversight role, who will?
The President's budget proposes an adjusted EPA appropriation that exceeds $5 billion dollars, and a
workforce exceeding 13,000 full-time equivalents. Neither of these numbers suggest any substantial
risk reduction to EPA resources, or justify decreased oversight by the OIG. In short, both revised
budget numbers are substantial and will requite adequate OIG resources to assure taxpayers that their
investment is being used as intended.
I respectfully request that the President^ budget recognize the vulnerability to the agency that any
reduction of OIG funding would create, along with the lass of return on investment it represents.
I also request that the President's budget restore the OIG request to the fiscal year 2016 level. If this
is not possible, consistent with the provisions of the Iti Act, I mpectfi% request that the President
include my above comments with the budget that is submitted to Congress.
If you or your stall have any questions, or if you »ouM like to meet and discuss this matter, please
contact me at (202J 566-08*17 or elkins.;irthiir@epa.
Arthur A,. Elkins Jr.
cc: "Ihe Honorable Michael Horowitz, Chairman,., Council of the Inspectors General
on integrity arxi Efficiency
David Bloom, Acting Ohtcf Hnuncial Officer, IT A
749
-------
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Worksheet For By 2018
Environmental Protection Agency
Table 1
PY 2016
(Actual)
CY 2017
(Estimates)
BY 2018
(Estimates)
1) Number of Physicians Receiving PCAs
4
4
4
2) Number of Physicians with One-Year PCA Agreements
3) Number of Physicians with Multi-Year PCA Agreements
4
4
4
4) Average Annual PCA Physician Pay (without PCA payment)
$138,606
$143,326
$144,759
5) Average Annual PCA Payment
$24,917
$24,419
$24,419
6) Number of Physicians
Receiving PCAs by Category
(non-add)
Category I Clinical Position
Category II Research Position
4
4
4
Category III Occupational Health
Category IV-A Disability Evaluation
Category IV-B Health and Medical Admin.
7) If applicable, list and explain the necessity of any additional physician categories designated by your
agency (for categories other than I through IV-B). Provide the number of PCA agreements per additional
category for the PY, CY and BY.
The EPA expects no additional categories to be applicable in the foreseeable future.
8) Provide the maximum annual PCA amount paid to each category of physician in your agency and explain
the reasoning for these amounts by category.
The maximum allowance being paid to a Category II Research Position is $30,000.
9) Explain the recruitment and retention problem(s) for each category of physician in your agency (this should
demonstrate that a current need continues to persist).
(.Please include any staffing data to support your explanation, such as number and duration of unfilled positions and number of
accessions and separations per fiscal year.)
Historically, the number of the EPA Research Physicians is between five and seven positions. This small population
experiences modest turnover. The value of the physicians' comparability allowance to the EPA is as a retention
tool.
10) Explain the degree to which recruitment and retention problems were alleviated in your agency through the
use of PCAs in the prior fiscal year.
(Please include any staffing data to support your explanation, such as number and duration of unfilled positions and number of
accessions and separations per fiscal year.)
We are told regularly that absent the allowance, some EPA research physicians would seek employment at federal
agencies that provide the allowance.
11) Provide any additional information that may be useful in planning PCA staffing levels and amounts in your
agency.
An agency with a very small number of physician positions and a low turn-over rate among them still needs the
allowance authority to maintain the stability of the small population. Those who opt for federal employment in
opposition to private sector employment still want the maximum pay available in the federal sector. Were it not for
the PCA, the EPA would regularly lose some of its physicians to other federal agencies that offer the allowance,
requiring the EPA to refill vacant positions. Turn-over statistics should be viewed in this light.
750
------- |