EPA's Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment - air, water and land - upon which life depends. This budget
supports the Administration's commitment to ensure that all Americans are protected from
significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. This
mission is being achieved through collaboration with states and tribes to implement air, water,
waste, and chemical programs.
EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request builds on the Agency's work to impact climate
change through actions under the Clean Air Act. It supports a greater focus on community-level
engagement, to augment and reinforce the critical work of our state and tribal partners. It moves
forward with the Agency's ambitious vision for protecting and restoring America's waters. It
will help assure the safety of chemicals, and it reflects an increase to ensure federal laws are
enforced fairly and effectively. EPA will carry out its mission based on the core values of
science, transparency and the rule of law to address the complex, inter-related and multi-
disciplinary challenges to environmental protection today.
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The EPA FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification requests $10.020
billion in discretionary budget authority. This request will support EPA's efforts to focus on
developing common-sense steps toward clean air, addressing the climate challenge, protecting
our nation's waters, cleaning up communities and ecosystems, and strengthening EPA's
scientific and enforcement capabilities. This budget also includes actions to improve EPA's
internal operations to deliver environmental results for the American people. Below are funding
highlights:
Supports Healthy Communities
The Environmental Protection Agency is committed to protect, sustain or restore the health of
communities and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of programs, tools, approaches and
resources. Results stem from effective regulatory frameworks, but also from partnerships with
stakeholders. Partnerships with international, Federal, state, tribal, local governments and non-
governmental organizations have long been a common thread across EPA's programs.
The FY 2011 budget includes a $27 million multidisciplinary initiative for Healthy
Communities. It supports states and communities in promoting healthier school environments by
increasing technical support, outreach, and co-leading interagency efforts to coordinate and
integrate existing school programs throughout the Federal government. It also provides
resources to address air toxics within at-risk communities, and to enhance the important joint
DOT/HUD/EPA outreach and related efforts with communities on sustainable development.
Improving a community's ability to make decisions that affect its environment is at the heart of
EPA's community-centered work. This budget supports EPA efforts to accelerate brownfields
cleanups through effective outreach and job creation in disadvantaged communities. The budget
includes an increase of $42 million to invest in revitalizing once productive community
-------
properties by removing blight, satisfying a growing demand for land, limiting urban sprawl,
fostering habitat enhancements, and spurring economic development.
In addition, EPA will integrate and leverage its assessment and cleanup authorities to address a
greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into
productive use while protecting human health and the environment. An element of this strategy
will be to identify and define and implement new program measures to better portray progress
and improve transparency. By deploying all cleanup tools available, including strengthened
enforcement and compliance efforts, this request supports EPA's commitment to helping
communities address cleaning up our communities.
Builds Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
This budget includes $1.3 billion for State and Tribal categorical grants. Our partners are
working diligently to implement new and expanded requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA), and need additional support during a time of constrained
state budgets. Increases for air grants include $25 million for developing and deploying
technical capacity needed to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in permitting under the
CAA and $60 million to support increased state workload for implementation of updated
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An additional $45 million is requested for states to
enhance their clean water enforcement and permitting programs. In order to help tribes move
beyond capacity building to implementation of environmental programs, $30 million is budgeted
for a new Tribal Multi-media Implementation grant program. To further enhance Tribal capacity
this budget also includes an additional $9 million for Tribal General Assistance Program grants.
Supports Action on Climate Change and Improves Air Quality
EPA will take meaningful, common sense steps to improving air quality and addressing climate
change. Making the right choices now will allow the Agency to improve public health, drive
technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment - all without placing an
undue burden on the nation's economy.
EPA's FY 2011 budget requests $43.5 million in new funding for additional regulatory efforts
aimed to reduce GHG emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This
includes $25 million for state grants focused on developing the technical capacity for addressing
GHG in their CAA permitting activities and an additional $5 million for related EPA efforts. It
also includes $13.5 million in additional funding for the development and implementation of new
emission standards that will reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources for passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. Funds also will support assessment
and potential development of standards, in response to legal obligations, for other mobile sources
and for assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several
categories of major stationary sources, through approaches that are flexible and manageable for
businesses.
The budget requests an additional $4 million for implementing the Mandatory GHG Reporting
Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data. This budget includes an increase of $2.3
-------
million to support community pilot programs as they develop and implement air toxics
approaches tailored to their local needs. An additional $1.1 million will be invested to improve
children's health through the delivery of effective asthma management strategies in schools and
communities.
Invests in Clean Water
Protecting America's waters is a top priority and EPA has an ambitious vision for the nation's
waters in the years ahead. Water quality has tremendous impacts on quality of life, on economic
potential, and on human and environmental health.
In FY 2011, EPA continues its commitment to upgrading drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure with a substantial combined investment of $3.3 billion for the Clean Water and
drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. America's waterbodies are imperiled as never
before from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking water
contaminants. EPA will confront the challenges from multiple angles - local and national,
traditional and innovative. A new Mississippi River Basin program is funded at $17 million to
focus on nonpoint source program enhancements to result in water-quality improvement. In
addition, $300 million is requested for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and support for the
Chesapeake Bay Program is increased by $13 million to $63 million. Investments in these and
other Clean Water and Drinking Water projects reflect a commitment to use leverage from
Federal agency partnerships to strengthen disadvantaged communities by reconnecting them with
their waters and achieving community-based goals.
Strengthens Enforcement
Through strengthened oversight, we will focus on environmental justice and partnership efforts
to ensure innovative and creative environmental programs are delivered consistently nationwide,
reaching historically under represented and at-risk populations. The FY 2011 President's Budget
includes approximately $615l million for EPA's enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program.
This includes $2 million to support updated and enhanced state water program data transfers to
our Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). ICIS is a critical tool for reviewing water
quality information and strengthens the Agency's ability to modernize our compliance network,
improve transparency, and provide important data to allow EPA, states and the public to track
environmental progress and prioritize future actions.
Organization of the FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA's FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification integrates budget and
performance. This submission presents multi-year performance data aligned program narratives.
Verification and validation documents are provided electronically. This submission includes an
appendix that responds to OMB requirements to address high priority performance goals.
' Corrects President's Budget funding levels in printed version.
-------
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Chapters Include
Resource Summary Tables
• Appropriation Summary ($)
• Appropriation Summary (FTE)
Goal & Objectives Overviews (Goals 1-5)
• Goal, Appropriation Summary ($)
• Goal, Appropriation Summary (FTE)
Program Project by Appropriation (S&T, EPM, IG, B&F, SF, LUST, OIL, and STAG)
• Resources for Appropriation
o Resource Table by Appropriation, Program Area, Program Project
o Program Project Fact Sheets (the following included within each fact sheet)
• Resource Chart ($, FTE)
• Program Project Description
• FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan
• Performance Information
• F Y 2011 Change from F Y 2010 Enacted Budget
• Statutory Authority
Program Performance and Assessment
• Performance
o 4-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines
o 4-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines for Enabling Support Programs
• Supplemental Performance Information
• Verification and Validation
Appendix
• Coordination with other agencies by goal/objective - Environmental Programs
• Coordination with other agencies by goal/objective - Enabling Support Programs
• Major Management Challenges
• User Fees
• Working Capital Fund
• Acronyms for Statutory Authorities
• STAG - Statutory Authority and Eligible Users
• Program Projects by Appropriation
• Program Projects by Program Area (detailed)
• Discontinued Programs
• CJ e-Gov Summaries
• Superfund Special Accounts
• High Priority Performance Goals
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• Statement - Acting IG
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 6
Budget Authority 6
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Super fund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
SUB-TOTAL, EPA (INCLUDING
RESCISSIONS)
Recovery Act - EPM
Recovery Act - IG
Recovery Act - LUST
Recovery Act - SF
Recovery Act - STAG
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$797,065.1
$2,405,796.7
$40,605.1
$37,842.7
$17,794.8
$1,350,247.8
$10,314.2
$24,850.2
$1,385,412.2
$113,264.0
$2,996,640.1
$7,794,420.7
$0.0
$7,794,420.7
$12,463.2
$1,767.6
$192,024.0
$572,908.2
$6,320,935.3
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY2010
Enacted
$846,049.0
$2,993,779.0
$44,791.0
$37,001.0
$18,379.0
$1,269,732.0
$9,975.0
$26,834.0
$1,306,541.0
$113,101.0
$4,978,223.0
$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$846,697.0
$2,891,036.0
$45,646.0
$40,001.0
$18,468.0
$1,258,377.0
$10,156.0
$24,527.0
$1,293,060.0
$113,219.0
$4,781,873.0
$10,030,000.0
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)1
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Oil Spill Response
Oil Spill Response - Reim
Superfund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Superfund Reimbursables
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FEMA - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Pesticide Registration Fund
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - Reim
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
SUB-TOTAL, FTE CEILING
FY 2009
Actuals
2,444.3
2.1
10,615.5
30.6
243.4
94.3
6.7
2,940.7
60.0
105.8
3,106.5
91.4
65.0
1.0
118.9
153.9
70.8
0.6
0.2
1.1
0.4
2.7
17,049.4
FY2010
Enacted
2,442.5
3.0
10,925.3
0.0
296.0
102.2
0.0
3,017.5
65.8
110.0
3,193.3
75.5
75.3
0.0
136.1
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17,417.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
2,469.0
3.0
11,066.5
0.0
296.0
102.2
0.0
3,007.1
65.8
107.5
3,180.4
75.5
74.2
0.0
136.1
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17,570.7
' Totals include military personnel in the Public Health Service Corps.
-------
Pesticide Registration Fund2
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
0.0
17,049.4
FY2010
Enacted
70.8
17,487.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
70.8
17,647.5
2 Presentation of reimbursable FTE for this account should not be interpreted as counting against the Agency ceiling, but rather a
projection of reimbursable FTE to accurately and transparently account for the size of this program and the Agency.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 10
Budget Authority 10
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 12
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 14
Clean and Safe Water 21
Land Preservation and Restoration 26
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 33
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 45
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Clean and Safe Water
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Land Preservation and Restoration
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,309,522.4
$241,918.6
$467,350.6
$3,979.6
$8,579.5
$3,411.0
$584,283.1
$8,887,323.4
$154,847.9
$478,560.0
$30,677.7
$5,583.4
$8,217,654.4
$2,595,018.9
$13,323.6
$221,283.7
$2,010.8
$4,431.7
$17,794.8
$1,924,004.6
$305,288.0
$106,881.8
$1,342,119.2
$348,320.4
$665,549.8
$3,792.3
FY2010
Enacted
$1,095,311.3
$255,948.9
$484,107.7
$5,064.0
$8,368.4
$3,868.2
$337,954.0
$4,896,505.1
$156,653.3
$494,913.0
$26,072.4
$5,477.3
$4,213,389.0
$1,764,383.6
$15,983.0
$222,861.0
$2,158.9
$4,650.9
$18,379.0
$1,273,403.8
$113,101.0
$113,846.0
$1,799,742.6
$369,572.5
$1,188,824.3
$8,387.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,192,949.6
$256,561.3
$526,251.9
$5,869.9
$9,372.7
$4,173.8
$390,720.0
$4,587,186.2
$155,929.1
$500,595.6
$25,869.0
$5,962.5
$3,898,830.0
$1,752,201.2
$15,541.6
$227,450.0
$2,269.7
$4,752.1
$18,468.0
$1,262,538.8
$113,219.0
$107,962.0
$1,673,517.4
$377,564.5
$1,021,523.9
$8,094.1
10
-------
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Total
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,796.6
$8,349.1
$302,310.9
$760,535.1
$38,654.6
$585,515.8
$1,912.3
$5,451.6
$22,555.7
$106,445.2
$14,894,519.0
$0.0
$14,894,519.0
FY2010
Enacted
$13,024.8
$8,524.7
$211,409.0
$781,921.5
$47,891.3
$603,072.9
$3,108.5
$5,479.5
$20,744.3
$101,625.0
$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,138.4
$8,735.6
$243,461.0
$824,145.5
$41,100.6
$615,214.5
$3,543.3
$5,775.3
$17,611.8
$140,900.0
$10,030,000.0
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
Recovery Act funds are included in the goal totals above. See Appropriation tables for more details on Recovery
Actfunds.
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PYfunds. No impact to actuals.
11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FEMA - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Clean and Safe Water
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM
Land Preservation and Restoration
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Oil Spill Response
Oil Spill Response - Reim
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY 2009
Actuals
2,650.5
719.1
1.7
1,860.3
1.8
22.9
16.6
1.0
26.9
0.1
0.0
2,868.3
479.6
2,188.2
1.9
176.2
18.4
0.8
0.5
2.7
4,464.8
51.4
1,154.2
7.6
11.6
94.3
6.7
2,968.9
FY2010
Enacted
2,678.9
724.6
3.0
1,869.5
0.0
33.5
18.4
0.0
29.9
0.0
0.0
2,924.6
484.3
2,247.4
0.0
172.3
20.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,555.6
59.2
1,150.4
0.0
14.3
102.2
0.0
3,062.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
2,795.0
730.7
3.0
1,973.3
0.0
38.1
18.7
0.0
31.3
0.0
0.0
2,928.2
493.1
2,246.5
0.0
167.8
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,551.2
57.7
1,146.6
0.0
14.7
102.2
0.0
3,065.1
12
-------
Superfund Reimbursables
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
WCF-REIMB
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - Reim
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
WCF-REIMB
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Pesticide Registration Fund
Inspector General - Reim
Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
WCF-REIMB
Inspector General - Reim
Total
FY 2009
Actuals
91.4
65.0
13.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
3,751.3
1,047.1
0.4
2,377.7
10.5
21.8
26.5
42.5
153.9
70.8
0.1
0.0
3,314.1
147.1
3,034.8
8.8
11.0
94.5
18.0
0.0
17,049.0
FY2010
Enacted
75.5
75.3
15.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,891.3
1,011.9
0.0
2,579.7
0.0
55.4
27.3
49.2
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,366.6
162.5
3,078.4
0.0
20.5
84.7
20.5
0.0
17,417.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
75.5
74.2
15.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,967.1
1,025.2
0.0
2,645.3
0.0
52.5
27.7
48.6
167.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,329.2
162.3
3,054.9
0.0
23.0
68.8
20.2
0.0
17,570.7
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PYfunds. No impact to actuals.
13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Through 2014, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by
attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from
toxic air pollutants.
• Through 2014, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to
indoor air contaminants through the promotion of voluntary actions by the public.
• Through 2014, continue efforts to restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect
the public from the harmful effects of UV radiation.
• Through 2014, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be
prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted
releases occur.
• Through 2014, continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary climate
protection programs that accelerate the adoption of cost-effective greenhouse gas
reducing technologies and practices.
• Through 2014, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of
human health and environmental outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
Protect the Ozone Layer
Radiation
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,309,522.4
$956,816.1
$49,107.1
$18,463.9
$37,757.7
$137,287.8
$110,089.8
2,650.5
FY2010
Enacted
$1,095,311.3
$720,156.2
$45,455.6
$18,630.5
$42,631.3
$167,264.2
$101,173.4
2,678.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,192,949.6
$811,320.1
$47,110.8
$18,609.4
$42,634.8
$168,558.1
$104,716.4
2,795.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
$97,638.3
$91,163.9
$1,655.2
($21.1)
$3.5
$1,293.9
$3,543.0
116.1
14
-------
EPA will take meaningful, common sense steps to improving air quality and addressing climate
change. Making the right choices now will allow the Agency to improve public health, drive
technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment — all without placing
an undue burden on the nation's economy.
The Clean Air program is founded on several principles: using health and environmental risks to
set priorities, streamlining programs through regulatory reforms, continuing to partner with
state, local and tribal governments as well as industry and non-governmental organizations,
promoting energy efficiency and clean energy supply, and encouraging market-based
approaches. EPA implements the Clean Air and Global Climate Change goal through national,
state, local, tribal and regional programs designed to provide healthier outdoor and indoor air for
all Americans, reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), protect the stratospheric ozone layer, minimize
radiation releases and enhance science and research.
In FY 2011, EPA is providing additional resources to the states and local governments to
implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by monitoring air quality and
developing and implementing State Implementation Plans. In addition, EPA will develop
guidance on GHG permitting for the states and local governments for anticipated GHG
permitting work. To complement that work and to respond to pending legal obligations, EPA
will assess and potentially develop New Source Performance Standards for GHGs and
regulations for large transportation sources. EPA will also be implementing GHG regulations
completed in FY 2009 and expected to be completed in 2010 such as the Mandatory Reporting
Rule and the Light Duty Vehicle Rule.
EPA's key clean air programs, including those addressing six common "criteria" pollutants:
particulate matter, ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and our
work on acid rain, air toxics, indoor air, radiation and stratospheric ozone depletion, focus on
some of the highest health and environmental risks faced by the country. Recent updates for the
NAAQS for lead, and proposed updates for ozone could yield significant health and
environmental benefits. Every year, state, local, tribal and federal air pollution programs
established under the Clean Air Act prevent tens of thousands of premature mortalities, millions
of incidences of chronic and acute illness, tens of thousands of hospitalizations and emergency
room visits, and millions of lost work and schools days.
High Priority Performance Goal
EPA will improve the country's ability to measure and control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Building a foundation for action is essential.
• By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100% of facility-level GHG
emissions data submitted to EPA in compliance with the GHG Reporting Rule.
• EPA, working with US DOT, will begin implementation in 2011 of regulations designed
to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the US starting with model
year 2012.
15
-------
Clean Air
Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer products have contributed to cleaner air for Americans in
much of the U.S. Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six
criteria air pollutants for which there are national ambient air quality standards. Despite this
progress, millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of the national
standards. Ground-level ozone and particle pollution still present challenges in many areas of
the country. In FY 2008, EPA promulgated a more protective standard for lead; we recently
proposed a new standard for ozone. In FY 2011, we will continue to work with state, local, and
tribal agencies to ensure active progress toward meeting these new standards.
As EPA issues more protective NAAQS at a faster pace, states are faced with an increasing
workload as they revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to meet the new NAAQS. States
must develop more stringent measures for areas that did not meet the previous NAAQS, and
measures for new areas not previously in nonattainment. The measures often are based on multi-
state strategies that require additional and more complicated modeling, refined emissions
inventories, and increased stakeholder involvement. In some cases NAAQS revisions have also
contained requirements for States to expand monitoring networks to help determine compliance
with revised NAAQS. In addition, states will likely be tasked with new responsibilities under
the Clean Air Act in order to help reduce GHG emissions. State programs for issuing operating
permits and for prevention of significant deterioration will require additional resources when
they begin to address greenhouse gas emissions in permitting large sources.
EPA's NOX SIP Call, and the Acid Rain Program have contributed to significant improvements
in air quality and environmental health. The required reductions in sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen have reduced ozone and particle pollution, improved visibility in our treasured national
parks, and led to significant decreases in atmospheric deposition. The decreases in deposition
have contributed to improved water quality in lakes and streams. Between the 1989-1991 and
2005-2007 time periods, wet sulfate deposition decreased by more than 30 percent and wet
inorganic nitrogen decreased by approximately 15 percent in the eastern U.S. Scientists have
observed measurable improvements and signs of recovery in a number of acidic water bodies.
Promoting Healthy Communities
From 1990 to 2005, emissions of air toxics declined by 42 percent - the results of a number of
regulations for industrial and transportation sources. EPA has issued 96 industrial air toxics
standards, affecting 174 categories of industry. When fully implemented, these standards will
reduce 1.7 million tons of air toxics every year.
Historically, although EPA's air toxics program has conducted significant outreach to
communities and tribes, it has focused largely, at a macro level, on developing national emission
standards for air toxics and conducting national-scale risk assessments. As a general matter,
EPA's enforcement program has taken a similar sector-based approach to addressing air toxic
emissions.
The FY 2011 budget request builds on work that the Agency has done in communities in 2008
and 2009. Our efforts with the City of Houston and other communities disproportionately
16
-------
impacted by air toxic emissions (e.g. Port Arthur, Texas), make it evident that the public health
and environmental impacts associated with air toxics emissions occur largely at the local level.
Further, existing information suggests that such risks may disproportionately affect some
vulnerable subpopulations, such as schoolchildren.
Consistent with the Administrator's commitment to Congress, ".. .to protect the American public
where they live, work, and play [as well as] schoolchildren where they learn," from the impacts
associated with air toxic pollutants, the request includes funding to collaborate with states, and
communities to identify if and where air toxics pollution is occurring at unsafe levels, and
aggressively reduce air toxics pollution within any at-risk communities, and around schools and
other places where children may be exposed. This budget includes an increase of $2.3 million to
support a limited number of community pilot programs as they develop and implement air toxics
approaches tailored to their local needs.
Reduce Risks to Indoor Air and Radon Programs
The Indoor Air Program characterizes the risks of indoor air pollutants to human health,
develops techniques for reducing those risks, and educates the public about actions they can take
to reduce their risks from indoor air. EPA educates and encourages individuals, schools,
industry, the health-care community, and others to take action to reduce health risks in indoor
environments. Outreach includes national public awareness and media campaigns, as well as
community-based outreach and education. EPA also uses technology-transfer to improve the
design, operation, and maintenance of buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to
promote healthier indoor air.
In FY 2011, as a part of the Agency's Promoting Healthy Communities - Healthy Schools
initiative, the Indoor Air Program will invest an additional $1.1 million in efforts to improve
children's health through the delivery of effective asthma management strategies in schools and
communities. Regional offices will provide support to communities across the country and will
allow targeting of efforts in underserved communities.
The Radon Program promotes action to reduce the public's risk to indoor radon (second only to
smoking as a cause of lung cancer). This non-regulatory program encourages and facilitates
voluntary national, regional, state, and Tribal programs and activities that support initiatives
targeted to radon testing and mitigation, as well as to radon resistant new construction.
Clean Energy & Climate Change
The FY 2011 budget request includes additional funding for steps the Agency can take in the
near term to help pave the way to a clean energy future. Most of this funding is focused on
assessing and potentially developing new GHG regulations in response to legal obligations, or
implementing GHG regulations completed in FY 2009 and 2010. For example, the Agency will
implement the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule while also including the added benefit of
identifying and communicating with industry possible cost-effective efficiency investments with
the resultant GHG reductions.
17
-------
The Agency will analyze critical air and climate-related issues relating to carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) technology, and eventually develop a framework for the permitting of the
carbon dioxide capture component of the CCS project. This budget request includes an increase
of $2.0 million for this work.
The FY 2011 budget request provides an increase of $6 million for analysis, development and
implementation of new emission standards that will reduce GHG emissions from transportation
sources. This includes the implementation of new standards for light-duty vehicles (passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles), covering model years 2012
through 2016. The Agency plans to finalize these firstever GHG emission standards in FY 2010.
EPA also plans to propose and promulgate heavy-duty vehicle and engine standards to complete
its obligation to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles in response to the Supreme
Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision. In addition, EPA will conduct analyses and technical
assessments and potentially develop GHG emission standards for other transportation source
categories in response to petitions to regulate GHG emissions of these sources.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations could be an effective mechanism to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources. The NSPS program provides
the opportunity to begin achieving emission reductions at new facilities through such actions as
improvements in energy and industrial process efficiency. The request includes $5 million to
assess and potentially develop NSPS regulations for major industrial sectors and seek, where
possible, market-oriented mechanisms and flexibilities to provide lowest cost compliance
options.
This request includes an additional $25 million to support state permit programs as they prepare
to issue permits for large sources of GHGs.
Voluntary GHG Reducing Programs
For more than a decade, businesses and other organizations have partnered with EPA, through
voluntary climate protection programs, to pursue common sense approaches to reducing GHG
emissions. Voluntary programs, such as Energy Star and SmartWay Transport, have increased
the use of energy-efficient products and practices, spurred investment in clean energy
development, and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs with very
high global warming potentials.
EPA will continue to implement the ENERGY STAR program across the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors consistent with the updated Memorandum of Understanding
with DOE, with an increase of $2 million. EPA will do this by: Enhancing the use of the
ENERGY STAR label on products including adding products to the program; accelerating the
rate that product specifications are updated in terms of stringency; and developing a
comprehensive product certification and verification initiative for ENERGY STAR qualifying
products. Another focus will be expanding ENERGY STAR programs that improve the
installation of products such as heating and cooling equipment whose efficiency is greatly
affected by installation practices.
18
-------
Stratospheric Ozone - Domestic and Montreal Protocol
In FY 2011, EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will continue to implement the
provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Montreal Protocol), and contribute to the reduction and control of ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) in the U.S.
Following the 2010 lowering of the ODS cap, EPA is responding to an increased number of ODS
substitute applications, many of which represent lower GHG options. Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, EPA will review alternatives to ODS to assist the market's
transition to alternatives that are safer, especially for the climate system.
Radiation
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with other Federal agencies, states, tribes, stakeholders,
and international radiation protection organizations to develop and use voluntary and regulatory
programs, public information, and training to reduce public exposure to radiation. The Agency
also will continue to conduct radiation risk assessments including updating its scientific
methodology, modeling, and technical tools for generating radionuclide-specific cancer risk
coefficients to more specifically address sensitive population groups such as infants, women, and
the elderly. Risk managers at all levels of government use this information to assess health risks
from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for clean-up of radioactively
contaminated sites. EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to tribes to locate and
cleanup radioactive wastes produced from uranium mining that contaminate tribal lands and
water resources with radionuclides and heavy metals.
Research
EPA, in accordance with the Administration's policy of scientific integrity, conducts research to
provide a scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect the air all Americans breathe.
The Agency's air research program supports implementation of the Clean Air Act, especially the
NAAQS, which sets limits on how much stratospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead, are allowed in the atmosphere. EPA also
conducts research on hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics.
In FY 2011, the budget request for the Agency's air research program includes an additional $3.0
million to support a next generation monitoring network for ambient air pollutants that will help
build the scientific backbone necessary to plug gaps in our regulatory system. The Agency's air
research program will also continue research to understand the sources and composition of air
pollution; develop methods for controlling sources' emissions; study atmospheric chemistry and
model U.S. air quality; investigate Americans' exposure to air pollution; and conduct
epidemiological, clinical, and toxicological studies of air pollution's health effects. The range of
research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the
scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design
of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering. In
FY 2011, the program will continue to focus on the effects of air pollution near roads on human
19
-------
health, as well as the development and evaluation of effective mitigation strategies. The Agency
will also fund research grants to universities and nonprofits to study topics such as the
relationship between long-term exposure to fine particles and air pollution mixtures in the
atmosphere and the frequency and progression of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. In FY
2011, EPA requests $85.3 million for the Clean Air Research program to continue studying
Americans' exposure to air pollution, and the links between sources of pollution and health
outcomes.
Global Change Research is discussed in the Goal 4 overview section.
20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Clean and Safe Water
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide
healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including
protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
• Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal
and ocean waters.
• By 2014, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of
human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking
water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic
ecosystems-specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean
waters.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,887,323.4
$3,204,952.3
$5,538,892.8
$143,478.3
2,868.3
FY2010
Enacted
$4,896,505.1
$1,770,225.2
$2,981,364.7
$144,915.2
2,924.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$4,587,186.2
$1,603,813.0
$2,831,001.4
$152,371.9
2,928.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($309,318.9)
($166,412.2)
($150,363.3)
$7,456.7
3.6
Protecting America's waters is a top priority and EPA has an ambitious vision for the nation's
waters in the years ahead. Water quality has tremendous impacts on quality of life, on economic
potential, and on human and environmental health. America's waterbodies are imperiled as
never before from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking water
contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies, both national
and local action.
In FY 2011 the Agency is launching new initiatives to confront the challenges from multiple
angles - local and national, traditional and innovative. The Mississippi River Basin initiative will
focus on nonpoint source program enhancements to result in water-quality improvement
throughout the watershed and in the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the Healthy Communities
21
-------
Initiative, EPA will launch the Community Water Priorities program to address issues related to
urban waters. The Agency will also continue collaboration with the Department of Interior and
the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement an Interagency Action Plan (IAP) to
significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations.
To make progress, the Agency also needs unprecedented partnerships with the states and tribes.
In FY 2011, significant new resources are targeted to states, to help with the growing universe of
facilities and the growing needs for Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDLs), monitoring and
innovative strategies for addressing infrastructure requirements. EPA will collaborate with
states and tribes in each of these areas to achieve clean and safe water objectives.
In FY 2011, EPA continues its commitment to upgrading drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure with a substantial combined investment of $3.3 billion for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. This investment will both facilitate continued
progress toward drinking water and clean water goals, and result in increased job opportunities at
the local level. EPA is working to ensure that Federal dollars provided through the State
Revolving Funds act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in technical,
financial, and managerial capacity, and the design, construction and on-going management of
sustainable water infrastructure.
The National Water Program will continue to place emphasis on sustainable infrastructure,
watershed stewardship, watershed-based approaches, water efficiencies, and best practices
through Environmental Management Systems. EPA will specifically focus on green
infrastructure, banking for wetlands conservation, and trading among point sources and non-
point sources for water quality upgrades. In FY 2011, the Agency will continue advancing the
water quality monitoring initiative and a water quality standards strategy under the Clean Water
Act, as well as important rules and activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Related efforts
to improve monitoring and surveillance will help advance water security nationwide.
Drinking Water
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on High Priority Performance Goals, EPA will take
actions over the next two years to improve drinking water and surface water quality. Work
under this goal supports one of EPA's High Priority Performance Goals related to public health.
• Over the next two years, EPA will initiate review/revision of at least four drinking water
standards to strengthen public health protection.
During FY 2011, EPA, the states, and community water systems will build on past successes
while working toward the FY 2011 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the population served by
community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards. To promote compliance with drinking water standards, states carry out a variety of
activities, such as conducting onsite sanitary surveys of water systems and working with small
systems to improve their capabilities. EPA will work to improve compliance rates by providing
22
-------
guidance, training, and technical assistance; ensuring proper certification of water system
operators; promoting consumer awareness of drinking water safety; maintaining the rate of
system sanitary surveys and onsite reviews; and taking appropriate action for noncompliance.
To help ensure that water is safe to drink, EPA requests $1.3 billion continuing EPA's
commitment for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. EPA will continue to work with
states to encourage targeting this affordable, flexible financial assistance to support utility
compliance with safe drinking water standards. EPA will also continue to work with utilities to
promote technical, financial, and managerial capacity as a critical means to meet infrastructure
needs, and further enhance program performance and efficiency, and to ensure compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Climate and Clean Energy Challenge
In order to support a potentially important climate mitigation technology, EPA will build on its
regulatory framework for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). As part of the Agency's
efforts to meet the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge, EPA is requesting an additional $1.1
million to support the Agency's work on geologic sequestration to ensure the integrity of
underground drinking water aquifers. This includes completing guidance to implement the rule
(e.g., monitoring, modeling, and Area of Review determinations), building state and regional
capacity to issue permits, training permit writers to review complex data, and communicating
that there is a protective program in place for Geologic Sequestration wells. In FY 2011, states
and EPA will process Underground Injection Control permit applications for experimental
carbon sequestration and gather information from these pilots to facilitate the permitting of large-
scale commercial carbon sequestration in the future.
Clean Water
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to collaborate with states and tribes to make progress toward
EPA's clean water goals. EPA's FY 2011 request includes a total of $485.1 million in
categorical grants for clean water programs. EPA will implement core clean water programs
and apply promising innovations, on a watershed basis, to accelerate water quality
improvements. Building on 30 years of clean water successes, EPA, in conjunction with states
and tribes, will implement the Clean Water Act by focusing on TMDLs and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits built upon scientifically sound water quality
standards, effective water monitoring, strong programs for controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution, stringent discharge permit programs, and revolving fund capitalization grants to our
partners to build, revive, and "green" our aging infrastructure.
The Agency's FY 2011 request continues the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to strengthen
the nationwide monitoring network and complete the baseline water quality assessment of the
nation's waters. The results of these efforts are scientifically-defensible water quality data and
information essential for cleaning up and protecting the nation's waters. Progress in improving
coastal and ocean waters documented in the National Coastal Condition Report, will focus on
assessing coastal conditions, reducing vessel discharges, implementing coastal nonpoint source
pollution programs, managing dredged material and supporting international marine pollution
23
-------
control. EPA will continue to provide annual capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) to enable EPA partners to improve wastewater treatment, non-point sources of
pollution, and estuary revitalization. Realizing the long-term benefits derived from the CWSRF,
EPA is continuing our CWSRF commitment by requesting $2.0 billion in FY 2011.
In FY 2011 EPA requests an additional $45 million in the Section 106 grants. The new funding
will strengthen the base state, interstate and tribal programs, address emerging water quality
issues such as nutrients and new regulatory requirements, and support expanded water
monitoring and enforcement efforts.
Imperiled Urban Waters
Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens, excess nutrients, and contaminated sediments that
result from sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from urban
landscapes, and legacy contamination. As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative, EPA will
launch the Community Water Priorities program to address issues related to urban waters.
Through Federal technical support and grants to the states, the program will advance water
quality improvements in urban watersheds through targeted implementation of core water
programs. It also will leverage more effective partnerships and strategically target resources.
With a particular emphasis on disadvantaged communities, the program will focus water quality
protection and restoration efforts on urban waters.
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan
EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Department of Interior will implement the
Interagency Action Plan to ensure that Appalachian surface mining projects do not violate water
quality standards or result in significant environmental degradation in the watershed.
Coordinating with the Corps, states, resource agencies, and the public, EPA will review CWA
404 and 402 permits of concern and negotiate a resolution to outstanding environmental issues
with the Corps and mine operators.
Homeland Security
EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation's critical water infrastructure
from terrorist threats. EPA will move to the next phase of the Water Security Initiative (WSI)
pilot program, focusing on support and evaluation activities, and will continue to support water
sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction
(WATR), to protect the nation's critical water infrastructure. The Agency also will continue
progress to integrate the Regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot laboratories into a
national, consistent program. The FY 2011 request includes $10.4 million for WSI support and
evaluation activities and $1.2 million for WATR.
Research
EPA, in accordance with the Administration's policy of scientific integrity, conducts research to
provide a scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect America's waters, under the
24
-------
authorities of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. The complementary Drinking
Water and Clean Water Research programs are both organized around specific long-term goals
to provide needed scientific information and tools to the Agency and other decision makers.
In FY 2011, the range of research programs and initiatives will continue both the work of better
understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as
advancing the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering. The Drinking Water and Water Quality research programs will work to align
themselves to provide a more unified approach to particular high-priority problems of source
water quality and sustainability.
In FY 2011, drinking water research will be expanded to address potential water supply
consequences associated with hydraulic fracturing. Congress has urged EPA to conduct this
research, which supports the Agency's efforts to ensure the protection of our aquifers. Green
infrastructure research will be expanded in FY 2011 to assess, develop, and compile
scientifically rigorous tools and models that will be used by EPA's Office of Water, states, and
municipalities. Green chemistry and green engineering approaches will advance the design of
sustainable solutions to clean water challenges. EPA will leverage the success of the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) grants program by significantly increasing funding for research grants
to top scientists in academia.
25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve and restore land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• By 2014, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products at facilities
in ways that prevent releases.
• By 2014, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact
of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites
or properties to appropriate levels.
• Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-
edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,595,018.9
$247,870.4
$2,298,964.9
$48,183.6
4,464.8
FY2010
Enacted
$1,764,383.6
$246,688.8
$1,462,950.8
$54J44.0
4,555.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,752,201.2
$252,852.6
$1,445,921.7
$53,426.9
4,551.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($12,182.4)
$6,163.8
($17,029.1)
($1,317.1)
-4.4
Land is one of America's most valuable resources and cleaning up our communities to create a
safe environment for all Americans is a priority for EPA. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
on the land can migrate to the air, groundwater, and surface water, contaminating drinking water
supplies, causing acute illnesses or chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems in
urban, rural, and suburban areas. Communities are directly affected by EPA's actions whether
they are site-specific actions or broad national policies. In recognition of the role of
communities and stakeholders in its work, EPA has begun a new era of outreach and protection
for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making.
In FY 2011, EPA is helping to meet the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge, investing in
Healthy Communities initiatives (Clean Green and Healthy Schools, Brownfields and
Sustainable Communities) and continuing to build strong state and Tribal partnerships. EPA will
work with states and tribes to assess Underground Storage Tank (UST) compatibility with
26
-------
alternative fuels and evaluate the transport and degradation characteristics of ethanol and diesel
blends; promote safe handling and management of poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing
caulk in schools while building necessary regional technical support and outreach to effectively
implement site-specific cleanup and disposal plans; build healthy and sustainable communities
particularly in urban areas with EPA's efforts working with Feed People - Not Landfills; and
strengthen our partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on cleaning up contaminated
sediments in urban rivers adjacent to Superfund sites.
To protect the land, human health and the environment, EPA focuses on prevention, protection,
and response activities to address risks posed by releases of harmful substances on land;
emergency preparedness, response, and homeland security to address immediate risks to human
health and the environment; enforcement and compliance assistance to ensure effective and
adequate oversight of our responsibilities by determining what needs to be done and who should
pay; and sound science and research to address risk factors and new, innovative solutions.
EPA will continue to use a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land: reducing waste at its
source, recycling waste, managing waste effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic
materials, and cleaning up contaminated properties. The Agency especially is concerned about
threats to our most sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with
chronic diseases, and prioritizes cleanups accordingly.1
Prevention, Protection, and Response Activities
EPA leads the country's activities to prevent and reduce the risks posed by releases of harmful
substances and to preserve and restore land with effective waste management and cleanup
methods. In FY 2011, the Agency requests $1.75 billion to continue to apply the most effective
approach to preserve and restore land by developing and implementing prevention programs,
improving response capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness of response and cleanup
actions. This approach will help ensure that human health and the environment are protected and
that land is returned to beneficial use.
Controlling the many risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances
presents a significant challenge. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to ensure that it is adequately
prepared to minimize contamination and harm to the environment from spills and releases of
hazardous materials by improving its readiness to respond to emergencies through training as
well as maintaining a highly skilled, well-trained, and equipped response workforce.
EPA's land program activities for FY 2011 align along four broad themes: 1) Integrated Cleanup
Program Initiative; 2) Land Revitalization; 3) Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy
Recovery; and 4) implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).
1 Additional information on these programs can be found at: http://www.epa. gov/superfundA
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/er_cleanup.htnu http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/,
http://www.epa.gOV/fedfac/andhttp://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/.
27
-------
Integrated Cleanup Program Initiative:
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multiyear effort in 2010 to explore better uses of assessment and
cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites
back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to
bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, and
Brownfields Projects), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites. For example, EPA is defining and implementing new performance measures that
further describe the achievements of EPA's cleanup programs. As an early step toward an
improved Superfund Remedial program measurement, in FY 2011, EPA will implement a new
performance measure to augment the site-wide construction completion measure. Further, this
effort will examine all aspects of EPA's cleanup programs, in a more granular fashion,
identifying key process improvements, enhanced efficiencies, and associated performance
measures to clearly gauge and demonstrate progress from site assessment through site-wide
construction completion. This effort may expand the transparency for EPA's cleanup programs,
encourage community involvement, and enhance accountability to the public.
Land Revitalization:
All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Superfund Federal Facilities Response,
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground
Storage Tanks) and their partners are taking proactive steps to facilitate the cleanup and
revitalization of contaminated properties. In FY 2011, the Agency requests $950.7 million to
help communities revitalize these once productive properties by removing blight, satisfying the
growing demand for land, helping limit urban sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat enhancements,
enabling economic development, and maintaining or improving quality of life. EPA continues to
support the RE-Powering America's Land initiative2 in partnership with the Department of
Energy. Finding suitable environmentally impaired lands to site renewable energy facilities is
one significant way EPA and the states can help the Administration meet its goals of 25 percent
renewable energy by 2025.
Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy Recovery:
EPA requests $11.1 million in FY 2011 to support EPA's strategy for reducing waste generation
and increasing recycling. EPA's strategy will continue to be based on: (1) establishing and
expanding partnerships with businesses, industries, tribes, states, communities, and consumers;
(2) stimulating infrastructure development and environmentally responsible behavior by product
manufacturers, users, and disposers; and (3) helping businesses, government, institutions, and
consumers reduce waste generation and increase recycling through education, outreach, training,
and technical assistance. In FY 2011, EPA will continue the Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC) as a major national effort to find flexible ways to conserve our valuable natural resources
through waste reduction, energy recovery, and recycling.3 Through RCC, the Agency will
continue to build partnerships with government agencies4, businesses, and nonprofits to
Additional information on this initiative can be found on http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergvland/.
3 For more information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/rcc.
4 Federal, state, local and Tribal agencies.
28
-------
encourage recycling and waste prevention, and leverage resources to improve energy
conservation.
Implementing the EPAct:
The EPAct5 contains numerous provisions that significantly affect Federal and state underground
storage tank (UST) programs and requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release and
prevention programs. In FY 2011, EPA requests $34.4 million to provide assistance to states to
help them meet their EPAct responsibilities, which include: (1) mandatory inspections every
three years for all underground storage tanks and enforcement of violations discovered during
the inspections; (2) operator training; (3) prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities ;
and (4) secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers.
In addition to EPA's land program activities, EPA's Homeland Security and Enforcement work
are important components of the Agency's prevention, protection, and response activities.
Homeland Security
EPA will continue to maintain its Homeland Security emergency preparedness and response
capability. In FY 2011, the Agency requests $40.2 million to continue to: maintain its capability
to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful chemical, biological, and
radiological substances; operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN);
maximize the effectiveness of its involvement in national security events through pre-
deployments of assets such as emergency response personnel and field detection equipment;
maintain the Emergency Management Portal (EMP); and manage, collect, and validate new
information for new and existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) agents as
decontamination techniques are developed or as other information emerges from the scientific
community.
Enforcement
EPA's Superfund enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an "enforcement
first" approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and
paying for cleanups in both remedial and removal programs. The Superfund enforcement
program includes nationally significant or precedential civil, judicial, and administrative site
remediation cases, and provides legal and technical enforcement support on Superfund
enforcement actions and emerging issues. The Superfund enforcement program also develops
waste cleanup enforcement policies, and provides guidance and tools that clarify potential
environmental cleanup liability, with specific attention to the reuse and revitalization of
contaminated properties, including Brownfields properties.
Enforcement authorities play a unique role under the Superfund program: they are used to
leverage private-party resources to conduct a majority of the cleanup actions and to reimburse
5 For more information, refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109 cong public Iaws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
6 Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
August 2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epactJ35.htmtfFinal.
29
-------
the Federal government for cleanups financed by appropriations. In FY 2011, the Agency
requests $187.4 million to support enforcement activities at Federal and non-Federal Superfund
sites. EPA's "enforcement first" approach ensures that sites with financially viable potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) are cleaned up by those parties, allowing EPA to focus appropriated
resources on sites where viable PRPs either do not exist or lack funds or capabilities needed to
conduct the cleanup. In tandem with this approach, various reforms have been implemented to
increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, promote economic development, and make sites
available for appropriate reuse.7 The Department of Justice supports EPA's Superfund
Enforcement program through negotiations and judicial actions to compel PRP cleanup and
litigation to recover Trust Fund monies spent. In FY 2009, the Superfund Enforcement program
secured private party commitments that exceeded $2.3 billion. Of this amount, PRPs have
committed to future response work with an estimated value of approximately $2 billion; PRPs
have agreed to reimburse the Agency for more than $371 million in past costs; and PRPs have
been billed by the EPA for approximately $79 million in oversight costs. These results can be
directly linked to Goal 3. EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable
institutional controls and financial assurance instruments are in place and adhered to at
Superfund sites and at facilities subject to RCRA Corrective Action to ensure the long-term
protectiveness of cleanup actions.
In FY 2011, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at contaminated properties. Where negotiations fail, the Agency will either
take unilateral enforcement actions to require PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to
remediate sites (or both). When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will
recover the associated cleanup costs from the PRPs. If future work remains at a site, recovered
funds could be placed in a site-specific special account. Special accounts are sub-accounts
within the Trust Fund which segregate funds obtained from responsible parties who enter into
settlement agreements with EPA. These funds act as an incentive for other PRPs to perform
cleanup work and can be used by the Agency to fund cleanup at that site. The Agency also will
continue its efforts to establish and use special accounts to facilitate cleanup, improve tracking,
and plan the use of special account funds. Through the end of FY 2009, more than 948 site-
specific special accounts have been established and over $2.96 billion have been deposited into
special accounts (including earned interest). Approximately $1.43 billion from special accounts
has been used by EPA for site response actions and another $184.3 million has been obligated
but not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully managing the $1.34 billion that was available as of
October 1, 2009 and has developed multi-year plans to use these funds as expeditiously as
possible. These funds will be used to conduct many different CERCLA response actions,
including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the extent of contamination and
appropriate remedy required, construction of the remedy, enforcement activities, and post-
construction monitoring.
EPA has ongoing cleanup and property transfer responsibilities at some of the Nation's most
contaminated Federal properties, which range from realigning and closing military installations
and former military properties containing unexploded ordnance, solvents, and other industrial
chemicals to Department of Energy sites containing nuclear waste. EPA's Superfund Federal
For more information regarding EPA's enforcement program and its various components, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
30
-------
Facilities Response and Enforcement program helps Federal and local governments, tribes,
states, redevelopment authorities, and the affected communities ensure contamination at Federal
or former Federal properties is addressed in a manner that protects human health and the
environment.8 In addition, EPA ensures that Federal entities are held accountable for the
commitments made in Federal Facility Agreements. EPA also is evaluating the enforcement
approach for formerly-utilized Defense sites and mine sites with Federal ownership.
Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Preserve Land
EPA's Land Research program, in accordance with the Administration's policy of scientific
integrity9, provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect America's land.
The FY 2011 Land Research program supports the Agency's objective of reducing or controlling
potential risks to human health and the environment at contaminated waste sites by providing the
science to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex
sites in accordance with CERCLA. The range of research programs and initiatives will continue
both the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health
problems as well as advancing the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as
green chemistry and green engineering. In FY 2011, EPA requests $53.4 million in support of
EPA's efforts to enhance science and research for land preservation and restoration.
Restoration research activities in FY 2011 will focus on contaminated sediments, ground water
contamination, site characterization, and site-specific technical support. Research will advance
EPA's ability to characterize the effectiveness of contaminated sediment remediation and will be
conducted in collaboration with the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to develop
alternative technologies to sediment dredging for remedy selection options. Research products
will develop data to support dosimetric and toxicologic assessment of amphibole asbestos fiber-
containing material from Libby, Montana.
Oil spill remediation research will continue on physical, chemical, and biological risk
management methods for petroleum and non-petroleum oil spills in freshwater and marine
environments as well as development of a protocol for testing solidifiers and treating oil. UST
research will assess UST compatibility with alternative fuels
Research will continue to focus on areas such as resource conservation, corrective action, multi-
media modeling, leaching, containment systems, and landfill bioreactors. In FY 2011, EPA will
continue working with states to optimize operations and monitor several landfill bioreactors to
determine their potential to provide alternative energy in the form of landfill gas while increasing
the nation's landfill capacity. Additionally, methamphetamine lab clean up studies will continue
to evaluate clean up techniques and exposure risks. Research efforts also will address science
needs for coal combustion residue regulatory actions.
! For more information on the Superfund Federal Facilities Response and Enforcement program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/.
For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-
Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/.
31
-------
In FY 2011, research also will continue in the area of nanotechnology fate and transport as part
of the Nanotechnology Research program efforts to address emerging issues and strategic EPA
issues. The goal of this research is to lead the Federal government in addressing key science
questions on the persistence and movement of nanomaterials in the environment.
32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated
and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• By 2014, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans,
communities, and ecosystems.
• Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
• Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
• Identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and
analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on pesticides and chemical toxicology;
global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and
ecosystem health.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Communities
Restore and Protect Critical
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,342,119.2
$402,056.3
$333,638.9
$215,571.5
$390,852.6
3,751.3
FY2010
Enacted
$1,799,742.6
$411,538.1
$251,749.2
$728,969.3
$407,486.0
3,891.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,673,517.4
$425,033.7
$297,729.0
$530,131.7
$420,623.1
3,967.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($126,225.2)
$13,495.6
$45,979.8
($198,837.6)
$13,137.1
75.8
In FY 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency will protect, sustain or restore the health of
communities and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of programs, tools, approaches and
resources. Results stem from effective regulatory frameworks but also from partnerships with
stakeholders. Partnerships with international, Federal, state, tribal, local governments and non-
governmental organizations have long been a common thread across EPA's programs.
Environmentalism has been described as a conversation that we all must have because it is about
protecting people in the places they live, work and raise families. In FY 2011, the Agency is
focused on expanding the conversation to include new stakeholders and involve communities in
more direct ways. EPA is proactive about detection and prevention of environmental risks to
33
-------
watersheds, communities, homes, schools and workplaces - but today's challenges require
renewed and re-focused efforts to address old pollution and prevent new pollution.
The Agency will carry out its responsibilities based on the core values of science, transparency
and the rule of law, and will include environmental justice principles in the full range of
decision-making. High-priority, cutting edge research will guide the Agency in finding efficient,
innovative and sustainable ways to address complex, inter-related and cumulative sources and
effects of pollution.
In FY 2011, EPA will invest in building Healthy Communities from multiple vantages:
Brownfields to assist economically hard hit communities; Clean and Green Schools to protect
our children, Community Waters grants to engage communities in new ways in making
improvements in their immediate environment, and Sustainable Communities activities to help
protect the future through smart development. Targeted geographic approaches receive new
funds also, to support important work to restore the Chesapeake Bay under the Executive Order,
and to reduce nutrient loading in the Mississippi River Basin with downstream benefits to the
Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the Agency will move forward with the far-reaching Great Lakes
initiative begun in 2010.
Ideally, EPA implements a strategy of preventing pollution at the source. EPA works to assure
the safety of chemicals before they are in use, as well as maximize the use of recent advances in
toxicology and analytical chemistry for chemical review. The Agency is shifting its focus to
identify and address chemicals of concern more quickly through Existing Chemicals Action
Plans, as well as filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals in commerce, including
endocrine disrupter screening. Innovation in green chemistry and research to develop faster
more efficient ways to uncover potential adverse effects are vital components of this work. In
FY 2011 new funding will allow expansion and acceleration in endocrine disrupter research and
computational toxicology.
In managing risk and in ensuring that environmental rules protect all Americans, EPA directs its
efforts toward identifying and mitigating exposures and other factors in our communities,
schools, homes, and workplaces that might negatively impact human health and environmental
quality. To do so, EPA conducts research to understand how specific groups of people may
differ in their inherent susceptibility or may be disproportionately exposed. For example,
sensitivity in children can depend on developmental stage, which can determine how they
metabolize (absorb and detoxify) chemicals. People living in communities near certain industrial
sources of pollution and/or roadways with high traffic volume may be disproportionately
impacted. Native Americans, or other Americans who rely on traditional sources of food, may
consume more fish or other locally gathered foods and may be disproportionately exposed to
contaminants in those foods. A renewed focus is being placed on the continuing Environmental
Justice (EJ) efforts to address the environmental and public health concerns of minority, low
income, Tribal, and other disproportionately burdened communities and focus on improving
environmental and public health protection in these communities.
Changes in ecosystems have long-range impacts that are beginning to be recognized and difficult
to reverse. In FY 2011 the Agency will continue collaboration with the Department of Interior
34
-------
and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement an Interagency Action Plan (IAP) to
significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations.
Research on ecosystem services as well as the impact of climate change will help identify
opportunities in regulatory, voluntary and outreach efforts. Routine ecological risk assessments
determine potential effects of pesticides, toxics or pollutants from various sources on plants,
animals, and ecosystems as a whole, as well as those species that are listed as threatened or
endangered.
The combined effect - community level actions, geographically targeted investments, attention
to chemicals, concern for ecosystems - implemented through the lens of science, transparency
and law - will bring real improvements and real protections for ourselves and for our children.
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on High Priority Performance Goals,
//. EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality. Clean water is
essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities.
• All Chesapeake Bay watershed States (including the District of Columbia) will develop
and submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010
and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's final Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
• By the end of fiscal year 2011, increase the percent of federal CWA discharge permit
enforcement actions that reduce pollutant discharges into impaired waterways from 20%
(FY 2009 baseline) to 25%, and promote transparency and right-to-know by posting
results and analysis on the web.
///. EPA will ensure that environmental health and protection is delivered to our communities.
• By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20 Brownfields community-level projects as part of an
enhanced effort to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities.
This will allow those communities to assess and address multiple Brownfields sites
within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning and cleanups and enabling
redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale than on individual sites.
EPA will provide technical assistance, coordinate its enforcement, water and air quality
programs, and work with other federal agencies, states, tribes and local governments to
implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each
community's area-wide plan.
Pesticides Programs
A key component of protecting the health of people, communities, and ecosystems is identifying,
assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the thousands of chemicals on which our society
and economy have come to depend. Toward that end, EPA is investing $144 million in
35
-------
Pesticides Licensing programs in FY 2011. Chemical and biological pesticides help meet
national and global demands for food; provide effective pest control for homes, schools, gardens,
highways, utility lines, hospitals, and drinking water treatment facilities; and control animal
vectors of disease. Many of these actions involve reduced risk pesticides which, once registered,
will result in increased societal benefits.
As part of the FY 2011 Healthy Communities initiative the Pesticides program will expand its
work with schools to reduce risks children face from pesticide use in the school environment.
Reduced concentrations of pesticides in water sources indicate the efficacy of EPA's risk
assessment, management, mitigation, and communication activities. Using sampling data,
collected under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment
program for urban watersheds, EPA will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions for four
pesticides of concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and cabaryl—and consider whether
any additional action is necessary
Toxics Programs
These programs span the full range of EPA activities associated with screening, assessing and
reducing risks of both new and existing chemicals. EPA is strengthening its risk management
activities to assure the safety of chemicals in products and in the environment. EPA will
continue reviewing and acting on 1,500 TSCA Section 5 notices, including Pre-Manufacture
Notices, received annually to ensure no unreasonable risk from new chemicals before they are
introduced into U.S. commerce.
EPA will also continue to assess and act on the thousands of existing chemicals already in
commerce before TSCA took effect and review data to support hazard assessment and risk
management actions for High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals. In FY 2011 the program
will evaluate the hazards and risks posed by HPV chemicals, and take appropriate risk
management actions to reduce human health and environmental risks. One focus area is
eliminating childhood lead poisoning, including implementing the Renovation, Repair and
Painting (RRP) Rule to address lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities
in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint.
Pesticides and Toxics Fees
In FY 2011, EPA will administer or propose several user fees as follows:
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee: This fee provides funding for the Registration Review
program with a portion supporting the processing of applications involving "me-too" or
inert ingredients.
• Enhanced Registration Services Fee: To accelerate pesticide registration decision service,
entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the
registration action request is submitted to EPA.
36
-------
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee: This fee supports the review and processing of new
chemical pre-manufacturing notifications submitted to EPA by the chemical industry.
• Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee: This fee is collected from operators of lead
training programs accredited under the 402/404 rule and for lead-based paint contractors
certified under this rule.
• Accelerated Chemical Risk Reduction Fee: Under proposed TSCA reform legislation, the
Agency envisions collecting fees to directly support implementation of a restructured
chemicals management program.
Water Programs
EPA's ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that address
specific at-risk regional areas and larger categories of threatened systems, such as urban waters,
estuaries, and wetlands. Locally generated pollution, combined with pollution carried by rivers
and streams and through air deposition, can accumulate in these ecosystems and degrade them
over time. Large water bodies, such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake
Bay, have been exposed to substantial pollution over many years. Coastal estuaries and wetlands
are also vulnerable. As the populations in coastal regions grow, the challenges to preserve and
protect these important ecosystems increase. Working with stakeholders, EPA has established
special programs to protect and restore these unique resources.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to lead the implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. The Initiative identifies $300 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to
target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA will
collaborate closely with its Federal partners in the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to
implement the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan to be completed in February 2010.
Pursuant to the Action Plan, the Initiative will use outcome-oriented performance goals and
measures to direct Great Lakes protection and restoration funding to the following areas:
• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
• Invasive Species
• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source
• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships
Funds will be used to strategically implement both Federal projects and prioritized/competitive
grants. These funds will not be directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed
under the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. Funding will be
distributed directly by EPA or through the transfer of funds to other Federal agencies for
subsequent use and distribution.
In FY 2011, EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of Interior will implement the
Interagency Action Plan to significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal
mining operations. In FY 2011, EPA will review and/or develop policy, analyze proposed CWA
37
-------
404 and 402 permits related to mining operations, and negotiate resolution to outstanding
environmental issues with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and mine operators. FY 2011
EPA will continue cooperation with Federal, state and Tribal governments and other
stakeholders toward achieving the national goal of no net loss an overall increase in the acreage
and condition of wetlands. The FY 2011 budget request for NEPs and coastal watersheds is
$27.2 million.
The $63.0 million Chesapeake Bay program FY 2011 budget request will allow EPA to
implement the President's Executive Order (E.O.) on Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration, to implement the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), to assist
program partners in their protection and restoration efforts, to increase the accountability and
transparency of the program, to continue responding to oversight reports, and to address other
priority initiatives as they arise. The efforts initiated in response to the E.O. will help accelerate
implementation of pollution reduction and aquatic habitat restoration efforts and ensure that
water quality objectives are achieved as soon as possible.
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the nation's largest and most complex TMDL, will necessitate
significant scientific and technical support to states and local jurisdictions in developing and
implementing the most appropriate programs for meeting their responsibilities under the TMDL
allocations. EPA has engaged multiple programs and offices to provide the regulatory, legal,
enforcement, and technical support necessary to meet these challenges.
EPA is committed to its ambitious long-term goals of 100 percent attainment of dissolved
oxygen standards in waters of the Chesapeake Bay and 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV). Along with its Federal and state partners, EPA has stated its intention to
establish two-year milestones for all actions needed to restore water quality, habitats, and fish
and shellfish.
The hypoxic zone that forms in the summer off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is primarily
caused by excess nutrients, many of which originate in middle American cities, farms and
industries. To address this pressing water quality challenge, in FY 2011, EPA will target the
Mississippi River Basin ($12.4 million for grants; $17 million total) to demonstrate how
effective nutrient strategies and enhanced partnerships can yield significant progress in
addressing non-point source driven nutrient pollution. This initiative supports the GulfHypoxia
Action Plan 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm) as well as the regional priorities
outlined in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance's Governor's Action Plan II, both of which describe a
strategy to reduce, mitigate, and control hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and improve
water quality in the Mississippi River Basin.
U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
The U.S.-Mexico Border region hosts a growing population of more than 14.6 million people,
posing unique drinking water and wastewater infrastructure shortages. In many areas along the
US-Mexico Border, no drinking water or wastewater services exist. In addition, the rapid
increase in population and industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed those areas that
have limited wastewater treatment and drinking water supply facilities. Untreated sewage
38
-------
pollutes urban waters that flow north into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, into the
Rio Grande or into the Pacific Ocean. In FY 2011, EPA sustains its long time commitment to
the water and sanitation needs of the Border region by investing $10 million in water
infrastructure projects. The Agency will continue to monitor the program to ensure it is well
managed and the Federal investment yields access to safe drinking water and wastewater
collection and treatment services for the communities in both countries.
Healthy Communities: Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools
This initiative will create a multidisciplinary Healthy Schools program to support states and
communities in promoting healthier school environments, increasing technical support and
outreach, and co-leading an interagency effort to better coordinate and integrate existing school
programs throughout the Federal government. Under the Healthy Communities and Ecoystems
goal, EPA would broaden the implementation of EPA's existing school environmental health
programs including asthma, indoor air quality, chemical clean out, green practices (i.e., cleaning
products, energy use, lighting, etc.), and enhanced use of Integrated Pest Management. The
Agency would also provide technical assistance for state school environmental health programs
and for implementing voluntary guidelines for school siting and construction.
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
CARE is a competitive grant and technical assistance program that offers an innovative way for
under-served and other communities to take action to reduce toxic pollution. Through CARE,
communities create local collaborative partnerships that implement local solutions to minimize
exposure to toxic pollutants and reduce their release. In FY 2011, EPA is requesting new grant
authority to continue this program beyond the demonstration phase.
Brownfields
EPA works collaboratively with state, Tribal, and local partners to promote the assessment,
cleanup, and sustainable reuse of Brownfields. In FY 2011, an additional investment of $38
million in Brownfields work will offer new opportunities to serve communities acutely impacted
by the economic downturn.
Improving a community's ability to make decisions that affect its environment is at the heart of
EPA's community-centered work. EPA shares information and builds community capacity to
consider the many aspects of planned development or redevelopment. EPA encourages
community development by providing funds to support community involvement and area-wide
planning associated with the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields sites. Through area-wide
planning, communities would identify how Brownfield properties can be redeveloped to meet
their needs for jobs, housing, recreation, and health facilities that would make a more viable and
sustainable community, as well as identify opportunities to leverage additional public and private
investment.
In addition, the Smart Growth program works with stakeholders to create an improved economic
and institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment. Addressing these challenges requires
39
-------
combining innovative and community-based approaches with national guidelines and
interagency coordination to achieve results.
Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by
communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. The Agency is committed to expanding
the reach of environmentalism and giving those communities a voice in critical decisions that
impact their lives. EPA works to make environmental justice an integral part of every program,
policy and activity by:
• Engaging communities in EPA decision-making and enlisting our partners to meet
community needs. EPA works to "open its doors" to communities of color, Native
Americans, the poor, and other historically underrepresented groups. In addition, EPA
actively engages community groups, other Federal agencies, states, local governments,
and Tribal governments to recognize, support and advance environmental protection and
public health for vulnerable communities.
• Supporting community efforts to build healthy, sustainable and green neighborhoods.
EPA works to empower vulnerable communities to protect themselves from
environmental harms and to build healthy and sustainable neighborhoods that enable
disadvantaged groups to participate in the new green economy. EPA's efforts to build
community capacity include financial and technical assistance.
• Applying EPA's regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities. EPA will work to
incorporate environmental justice considerations in EPA's regulatory and policy
decisions by building a strong scientific and legal foundation and engaging the public in
EPA's decision-making processes.
International Activities
Emissions from automobiles on the world's highways contribute to the same urgent
environmental problem as the degradation of peat bogs in Indonesia and deforestation in the
Amazon - or booming industrial centers in China and India. In this global challenge, every
nation's actions create impacts that extend well beyond our individual borders. By assisting
developing countries to improve their environmental governance, manage their natural resources
and protect the health of their citizens, EPA also helps to protect human health and the
environment in the U. S
To sustain and enhance domestic and international environmental progress, EPA enlists the
cooperation of other nations and international organizations to help predict, understand, and
address environmental problems of mutual concern. Sound environmental laws, regulations,
policies, and their enforcement and implementation form an essential foundation for effective
global environmental management. However, only sustainable economic solutions in developed
and developing nations will bring real reductions in worldwide levels of GHG's or other
pollutants of concern.
40
-------
EPA is committed to reducing the concentration and emissions of long-lived climate-warming
gases while at the same time finding ways to assist communities, especially those most at risk, to
adapt to climate-induced changes, nationally and internationally. EPA recognizes that adaptation
cannot be imposed on anyone but rather, must at its core be a community-led consultative
process that leads to actions that improve the lives and conditions of affected communities. On
climate mitigation EPA is also actively working to identify additional ways to reduce the
panoply of short-lived but potent climate pollutants such as black carbon soot, tropospheric
ozone and methane, in the interest of trying to mitigate climate warming most immediately on
the scale of continents and regions, while continuing to grapple with reducing the long-lived
climate-warming gases.
EPA assists in the coordination of its international and domestic environmental policies so that
U.S. international obligations are informed by domestic policy and expertise, that domestic
programs fulfill international obligations, and that actions by other countries needed to reach
domestic goals are catalyzed and promoted. .
Consistent with the principles of sustainable development, protecting the environment and public
health in the U.S.-Mexico border region are also priorities for Mexico and the United States
under the Border 2012 Agreement. The key to sustaining and enhancing progress, both
domestically and internationally, is the collaborative efforts of national, Tribal, state, and local
governments, international organizations, the private sector, and concerned citizens.
Research
EPA has a responsibility to ensure that efforts to reduce potential environmental risks are based
on the best available scientific information. Strong science allows for identification of the most
important sources of risk to human health and the environment, as well as the best means to
detect, abate, and avoid possible environmental problems, and thereby guides our priorities,
policies, and deployment of resources. To accelerate the pace of environmental protection for
healthy people, communities, and ecosystems, EPA is engaging in high-priority, cutting-edge,
multidisciplinary research efforts in areas related to human health, ecosystems, mercury, global
change, pesticides and toxics, endocrine disrupters, computational toxicology, nanotechnology,
human health risk assessment, and homeland security. The range of research programs and
initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our
environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions
through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering. This research is critical for
the Agency to meet its priorities for assuring the safety of chemicals, and protecting our
communities.
EPA also conducts research through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. The
STAR program leverages innovative and cutting-edge research from top scientists in academia
through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPA's overall
research efforts. In FY 2011, EPA is increasing funding for the STAR program by more than
40 percent.. A significant portion of STAR supports research under Goal 4, including the STAR
Fellowships Research program. STAR Fellowships contribute to one of the Administration's top
priorities in FY 2011, strengthening science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
41
-------
education. The Agency proposes $14.0 million for STAR Fellowships in FY 2011, an increase
of more than $6 million, which will allow EPA to award approximately 240 new fellowships.
These fellowships help ensure the Nation has a diverse scientific workforce to meet the
challenges of tomorrow. They also represent an investment in EPA's future and our ability to
ensure that science remains the backbone of the Agency for years to come.
As designed, most of the long-standing EPA research programs investigate statute-specific
environmental research questions, which have allowed the Agency to address many important
environmental questions. However, current environmental problems are more complex and
require a new approach to maximize the EPA research programs' responsiveness to the rapidly
changing needs of internal and external partners. To facilitate this evolution, the Agency is
beginning to realign elements of its research programs to further advance the Agency's ability to
conduct integrated, multidisciplinary research that translates scientific and technological
advances and findings to information that directly informs environmental and public health
decisions. This new, more integrated approach will enhance our ability to develop high capacity
decision support tools for managing contaminants across their life cycles.
In FY2011, the Human Health Research program is working to maintain its success with
characterizing and reducing uncertainties in exposure and risk assessment as well as developing
improved tools for predicting the safety of chemicals and products. The program is orienting this
work toward understanding linkages along the potential source-exposure-effects-disease
continuum and demonstrating reductions in human risk. This orientation is designed to include
research that addresses limitations, gaps, and health-related challenges articulated in the health
chapter of the EPA Report on the Environment (2007). Research includes exploration of key
events in pathways of toxicity that can be used to predict adverse health outcomes, development
of models to predict exposures in complex community settings and for susceptible populations,
and identification of viable bio-indicators of exposure, susceptibility, and effect that could be
applied to evaluate public health impacts at various geospatial and temporal scales. Extramural
STAR research complements intramural programs with a strong focus on children's health, safe
schools, and epidemiologic approaches designed to link information from exposure and
toxicology studies to human health outcomes. The Agency is requesting $80.1 million in FY
2011 for Human Health research.
In FY2011, the Agency's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program will continue to
implement a process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies into
Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) of criteria air pollutants to assist EPA's air and radiation
programs in determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The program
will release external review draft ISAs for ozone and lead for public comment and Clean Air
Science Advisory Committee review. In addition, the HHRA research program will complete
multiple human health assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency review or external
peer review and post several completed human health assessments in the integrated risk
information system. In FY 2011, EPA requests $49.0 million for the Human Health Risk
Assessment program, which includes $14.4 million and 48 work years to allow the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) program to maintain recent increases in the annual output of
new IRIS assessments and updates of existing assessments.
42
-------
In order to assess the benefits of ecosystem services to human and ecological well-being, it is
important to define ecosystem services and their implications, to measure, monitor and map
those services at multiple scales over time, to develop predictive models for quantifying the
changes in ecosystem services, and to develop decision platforms for decision makers to protect
and restore ecosystem services through informed decision making. The Agency is requesting a
total of $74.0 million in FY 2011 to support Ecosystems research. The Ecosystem Services
research program has transitioned to focus on advancing the science of ecosystems services and
its application to decision making.
Over the last decade, the endocrine disrupter research program conducted the underlying
research, developed and standardized protocols, prepared background materials for transfer to
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, briefed Agency advisory committees, participated on
international committees on harmonization of protocols, and participated in the validation of 19
different in vitro and/or in vivo assays for the development and implementation of the Agency's
Endocrine Disrupters Screening program (EDSP). In FY 2011, EPA is requesting $17.4 million
for the continued development, evaluation, and application of innovative tools for endocrine
disrupting chemicals. This includes a significant increase for the STAR grant program.
In FY 2011, the Computational Toxicology Research program will play a critical role in
coordinating and implementing research across the Agency. In addition, greater emphasis will
be placed on using systems biology based approaches to advance health-based assessments. In
FY 2011, EPA is requesting $21.9 million, an increase of $1.9 million, to support application of
mathematical and computer models to help assess chemical risk to human health and the
environment. Funds for next-generation tools will speed and facilitate implementation of EPA's
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
In FY 2011, continued pesticides and toxics research will focus on characterizing toxicity and
pharmacokinetic profiles of perfluoroalkyl chemicals, developing analytical methods and
examining the potential for selected perfluorinated telomers to degrade to perfluoroctanoic acid
or its precursors. The program also will conduct research to develop spatially-explicit
probabilistic models for ecological assessments. In FY 2011, EPA requests $27.6 million for
continued pesticides and toxics research to support the scientific foundation for addressing the
risks of exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals in humans and wildlife.
EPA will continue to investigate nanotechnology's environmental, health, and safety
implications in FY 2011. This research will examine which processes govern the environmental
fate of nanomaterials and what data are available and needed to enable nanomaterial risk
assessment. EPA is requesting $20 million for the Nanomaterials Research program in FY 2011
to expand the availability of information to ensure the safe development, use, recycling and
disposal of products that contain nanoscale materials.
EPA will continue research to better understand how climate change will affect the environment,
including the environmental and human health implications of greenhouse gas adaptation and
mitigation strategies, and the implications of climate change for the Agency's fulfillment of its
statutory, regulatory and programmatic requirements. The Agency's climate change research
43
-------
also includes the development of decision support tools to help resource managers adapt to
changing climate conditions. In FY 2011, EPA requests $22.0 million for the Global Change
Research program to enhance understanding of the effects of global change on the environment.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to enhance the nation's preparedness, response, and
recovery capabilities for homeland security incidents through research, development, and
technical support activities in the areas of decontamination, water infrastructure protection, and
threat and consequence assessment. The FY 2011 request level for this area is $30.7 million.
44
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
requirements by enforcing environmental laws and regulations, preventing pollution, and
promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for
governments, tribes, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and
long-term sustainable outcomes.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• Reduce pollution by implementing an effective enforcement program that promotes
compliance and deters violations. Use enforcement tools as part of a coordinated strategy
to achieve goals for national priorities and programs.
• Enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural
resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship
practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
• Integrate Environmental Justice into all aspects of EPA's programs.
• Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally-
recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity, assess environmental
conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian
country.
• Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology
development, and sustainable systems. The products of this research will provide critical
and key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving complex
multimedia problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Achieve Environmental Protection
through Improved Compliance
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Other Stewardship Practices
Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
Enhance Societies Capacity for
FY 2009
Actuals
$760,535.1
$516,127.8
$113,990.9
$81,547.0
$48,869.5
FY2010
Enacted
$781,921.5
$531,383.1
$111,466.7
$80,731.9
$58,339.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$824,145.5
$545,315.4
$102,407.9
$124,477.2
$51,945.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
$42,224.0
$13,932.3
($9,058.8)
$43,745.3
($6,394.7)
45
-------
Sustainability through Science and
Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
3,314.1
FY2010
Enacted
3,366.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
3,329.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
-37.4
Protecting the public and the environment from risks posed by violations of environmental
regulations is central to the Environmental Protection Agency's mission and a priority for this
Administration. EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with federal laws
and regulations by monitoring compliance and taking enforcement actions that result in reduced
pollution and improved environmental conditions
Laws and regulations provide the fundamental building blocks of our environmental protection
system and establish a level playing field for companies and citizens alike. Many of America's
historic environmental improvements are attributable to EPA's strong and aggressive
enforcement program. To help the Agency meet its mission, EPA will continue to employ a
vigorous civil and criminal enforcement program to protect the public from environmental
hazards, with a particular emphasis on the protection of vulnerable communities.
To accelerate the nation's environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at
the source, and promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, sustainability,
and innovation. EPA works to improve and encourage pollution prevention as the first choice
for environmental protection, striving for sustainable practices and helping businesses and
communities move beyond compliance and become partners in protecting natural resources,
managing materials more wisely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving the
environment and public health. EPA also works with other nations as they develop their own
environmental protection programs, leading to lower levels of pollution in the United States and
worldwide.
In 1984, EPA adopted a formal Indian Policy. The Agency affirms that Policy in recognition
that the United States has a unique legal relationship with tribal governments based on the
Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. This relationship includes
recognition of the rights of tribes - as sovereign governments - to act with self-determination.
Ensuring compliance and promoting environmental stewardship are important components of the
Agency's efforts to protect human health and the environment in Indian Country. Tribes, the first
stewards of America's environment, provide an invaluable perspective on environmental
protection that benefits and strengthens the Agency's stewardship. In FY 2011, EPA is
requesting an increase in support to tribal programs to address critical needs in assessing
environmental conditions on their lands and building environmental programs tailored to their
needs as well as a new multi-media grant to allow them to implement their highest priority
programs.
EPA also will strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies
and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
46
-------
High Priority Performance Goal
As part of the Administration's emphasis on High Priority Performance Goals, EPA will take
actions over the next two years to improve enforcement results. Work under this goal supports
one of the Agency's FY 2011 High Priority Performance Goals, specifically:
II. Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities.
EPA will take actions over the next two years to improve water quality.
By the end of fiscal year 2011, increase the percent of federal CWA discharge permit
enforcement actions that reduce pollutant discharges into impaired waterways from 20%
(FY 2009 baseline) to 25% and promote transparency and right-to-know by posting
results and analysis on the web.
Improving Compliance with Environmental Laws
To be effective, EPA requires a strong enforcement and compliance program, one which:
identifies and reduces noncompliance problems, responds to complaints from the public, strives
to secure a level economic playing field for law-abiding companies, and deters future violations.
In order to meet the Agency's goals, the program employs an integrated, common-sense
approach to problem-solving and decision-making. An appropriate mix of data collection and
analysis, compliance monitoring, assistance and incentives, civil and criminal enforcement
efforts, and innovative problem-solving approaches address significant environmental issues and
achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes. The total proposed FY 2011 budget to improve
compliance with environmental laws is $545.5 million.
EPA's national enforcement and compliance assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance with 12 environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and dozens
of regulatory requirements under those programs which apply in various combinations to a
universe of approximately 40 million regulated Federal and private entities. In addition, as a
means for focusing its efforts, the enforcement program identifies, in three year cycles, specific
environmental risks and noncompliance patterns as national priorities. The enforcement program
coordinates the selection of these priorities with programs and regions within EPA, and with
states, local agencies, and tribes, in addition to soliciting public comment.
In FY 2011, the Agency proposes to merge the Compliance Assistance and Compliance
Incentives activities into the Civil Enforcement program, with a small component of compliance
assistance moving into the Compliance Monitoring program. Under the current structure,
individual enforcement tools are emphasized. The new model will allow us to focus on
outcomes, tailoring our approach to address the unique characteristics and requirements of
individual cases. This new model also will allow us to better integrate our efforts with the
states, refining our role as state capabilities evolve to best support the national enforcement
program. Merging the Compliance Assistance and Incentives programs into the enforcement
program allows the Agency to pursue the most effective approach and communicates our
commitment to vigorous enforcement, making the threat of Federal enforcement more credible.
47
-------
The Agency's Compliance Monitoring program reviews and evaluates the activities of the
regulated community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit
conditions, and settlement agreements as well as to determine whether conditions presenting
imminent and substantial endangerment exist. FY 2011 Compliance Monitoring activities will
be both environmental media- and sector-based. EPA's media-based inspections complement
those performed by states and tribes, and are a key part of our strategy for meeting the long-term
and annual goals established for the air, water, pesticides, toxic substances, and hazardous waste
programs. In FY 2011 the Compliance Monitoring Program will increase to include work
previously done under the Compliance Assistance program, primarily training activities. In FY
2011, the Compliance Monitoring program's proposed budget is $111.7 million.
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment, targeting enforcement actions according to the degree of health and environmental
risk in order to promote compliance with Federal environmental statutes and regulations. The
program collaborates with the Department of Justice, states, local agencies, and tribal
governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations.
The program seeks to protect public health and the environment and ensure a level playing field
by strengthening our partnership with our co-implementers in the states, encouraging regulated
entities to rapidly correct their own violations, ensuring that violators do not realize an economic
benefit from noncompliance, and pursuing vigorous enforcement to deter future violations.
The Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial
cases against serious violators of environmental laws. In FY 2011 the Civil Enforcement
program will expand to include work previously supported by the Compliance Incentives and
Compliance Assistance programs. In FY 2009, EPA achieved commitments to invest more than
$5 billion in future pollution controls and pollution reduction commitments totaling nearly 600
million pounds. Over the last nine years, EPA's long-term environmental results achieved
through enforcement settlements in FY 2001-2009 total an estimated 9.8 billion pounds of
pollution reduced.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to aggressively implement its Civil Enforcement program,
including the national compliance and enforcement priorities established for FY 2011-2013.
Existing national priorities address problems that remain complex and challenging, including
Clean Water Act "Wet Weather" discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations at mineral processing facilities.
Information on priorities, regulatory requirements, enforcement alerts, and EPA results will be
made available to the public and the regulated community through web-based sites. The Civil
Enforcement program also will support the Environmental Justice program and the
Administrator's priority to address pollution impacting vulnerable populations. The Civil
Enforcement program will focus enforcement actions on facilities that have repeatedly violated
environmental laws in communities that may be disproportionately exposed to risks and harms
from the environment, including minority and/or low-income areas. In addition, the Civil
Enforcement program will help to implement the President's directive to develop and implement
a compliance and enforcement strategy for the Chesapeake Bay; activities will include enhanced
48
-------
enforcement to ensure existing regulations are complied with consistently and in a timely
manner. In FY 2011, the Civil Enforcement program's proposed budget is $187.1 million.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute environmental violations
which seriously threaten public health and the environment and which involve intentional,
deliberate, or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The Criminal Enforcement program
deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the regulated
community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines, for such
violations. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong deterrence message for potential violators,
enhancing aggregate compliance with laws and regulations and protecting our communities.
In FY 2011, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to expand its identification and
investigation of cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impact while
balancing its overall case load of cases across all pollution statutes. By the end of FY 2010, the
program will have completed its three-year hiring strategy, raising the number of special agents
to 200. With these resources, the program will expand its capacity in supporting efforts to
address complex environmental cases in FY 2011. The Criminal Enforcement program's
proposed budget is $59.5 million.
EPA fulfills its uniquely Federal responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by reviewing and commenting on other Federal
agency Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), and making the comments available to the
public. NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare and submit EISs to identify potential
environmental consequences of major proposed activities, and develop plans to mitigate or
eliminate adverse impacts. EPA will continue to work with other Federal agencies to streamline
and to improve their NEPA processes. Work will focus on a number of key areas such as review
and comment on mining, on-shore and off-shore liquid natural gas facilities, coal bed methane
development and other energy-related projects. EPA will also be conducting work as part of the
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan. In FY 2011, the NEPA program's proposed
budget is $18.5 million.
Improving Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention, Stewardship and
Innovation
In FY 2011, EPA is reorienting it innovation programs to accomplish a new Administration
priority—environmental stewardship strategies that promote a green, revitalized, sustainable
economy. This will build from work done in previous years, and actively engage all parts of
society (business, communities, government and individuals) in actions to promote actions that
improve environmental quality and achieve sustainable results. EPA will draw on its innovation
and cross media experience to provide strategic focus analysis and coordination across the
Agency, with States and with other Federal agencies.
In FY 2011, with a request of $15.4 million, EPA's Pollution Prevention (P2) program will
provide technical assistance, information and supporting assessments to encourage the use of
greener chemicals, technologies, processes, and products through eight principal programs:
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, Design for the Environment, Green Suppliers Network,
49
-------
Regional Grants, Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, Partnership for Sustainable
Healthcare, Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. In addition, EPA's P2 program will
continue to support the new Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) partnership among federal
agencies, local governments and manufacturers to promote energy efficiency, job creation and
environmental improvement Through these efforts, EPA will encourage government and
business to adopt source reduction practices that can help to prevent pollution and avoid resulting
health and environmental impacts. P2 grants to states and tribes enable them to provide technical
assistance, education, and outreach to assist businesses.
In FY 2011, through the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program (EPP), the Agency will
be a leader in implementing the Federal Electronics Challenge, a partnership that encourages
federal agencies to purchase and properly utilize cleaner and safer electronic products. In
addition, EPA's Green Suppliers Network Program will continue to work with large
manufacturers to engage their small and medium-sized suppliers in low-cost technical reviews
that focus on process improvements and waste reduction. Through the Design for the
Environment (DfE) and Green Chemistry programs, EPA will remain active in promoting and
recognizing the use of greener chemicals, synthetic pathways, and formulations. The DfE
Program helped companies reduce the use of more than 460 million pounds of hazardous
materials in 2008 alone.
In FY 2011, through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), the Agency
will continue to reduce priority chemicals in wastes. As of August 2009, the NPEP program has
obtained industry commitments for over eight million pounds of additional chemical reductions
though 2014. Reductions will be achieved by recycling and/or source reduction made possible by
safer chemical substitutes.
In FY 2011, EPA will focus its regulatory innovation work to accomplish a new Administration
priority to promote greener, revitalized, sustainable communities and regional and national
communities. This approach will help the Agency meet its core mission goals more efficiently
by providing more tools and resources to communities and by creating stronger, more resilient
communities. This area of work recognizes the importance of coordinating and integrating
Agency strategies and address emerging cross-cutting issues to support greener national and
local economies.
Promoting a Greener Economy
During FY 2011, EPA will realign and build upon its prior innovation and cross-media
experience with a strategic focus on efforts that help to advance the goal of a greener economy.
EPA also is analyzing and promoting new strategies for: energy and natural resource use,
materials management, increased sustainability in goods and services, and financial transparency
on environmental issues. These new efforts are designed to maximize the longer-term benefits
of near-term investments in a cleaner, healthier environment and economy.
50
-------
Program Evaluation
EPA uses program evaluation and performance analysis to support evidence-based decisions
about which programs protect human health and the environment in the most efficient and the
most cost-effective ways. This is particularly important in an era of fiscal responsibility that calls
for greater Federal accountability and public transparency of our programs. EPA acknowledges
that rigorous, independent empirical evidence plays an important role in effective environmental
policy and EPA is committed to publicly disseminating complete evaluation findings. In FY
2011, EPA will build evaluation capacity, support a performance management training regimen
(online and classroom) which enables EPA staff and managers to use essential tools such as logic
modeling and performance measurement, and also support outcomes and impact measurement
projects in collaboration with states and other co-regulators. EPA will make available to the
public data that enable external evaluators to assess programs.
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
The Administrator's priority on strong partnerships recognizes that Tribes bear important
responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection. To help address this
challenge, in FY 2011, EPA is increasing its support of General Assistance Program (GAP)
grants, as well as introducing a new focused multi-media Tribal grant to support implementation
efforts.
Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with Federally-recognized tribes
on a government-to-government basis, in recognition of the Federal government's trust
responsibility to Federally-recognized tribes. Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency
is responsible for protecting human health and the environment in Indian country. EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) leads an Agency wide effort to work with tribes,
Alaska Native Villages, and inter-tribal consortia to fulfill this responsibility. EPA's strategy for
achieving this objective has three major components:
Establish an Environmental Presence in Indian Country: The Agency will continue
to provide funding through the Indian General Assistance Program so each federally-
recognized tribe can establish an environmental presence.
Provide Access to Environmental Information: EPA will provide the information
tribes need to meet EPA and Tribal environmental priorities, as well as characterize the
environmental and public health improvements that result from joint actions.
Implementation of Environmental Goals: The Agency will provide opportunities for
the implementation of Tribal environmental programs by tribes, or directly by EPA, as
necessary.
In FY 2011, EPA will provide $71.4 million in GAP grants (an increase of $8.5 million) to help
build Tribal environmental capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available
information, and build an environmental program tailored to tribes' needs. The grants will
develop environmental education and outreach programs, develop and implement integrated
51
-------
solid waste management plans, and alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public
health and ecological threats.
Additionally, the Agency is requesting a new focused $30 million grant program to support the
multi-media Tribal implementation program. These grants are tailored to address an individual
tribe's most serious environmental needs through the implementation of Federal environmental
programs, and will build upon the environmental capacity developed under the GAP. This new
grant will advance negotiated environmental plans, measures and results as agreed upon by tribes
and EPA, ensuring that tribal environmental priorities are addressed to the fullest extent possible.
Enhancing Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
The Agency proposes $51.4 million in FY 2011 to enhance capacity for sustainability through
science and research. With the Administrator's focus on a strong scientific foundation, the
research tools and technologies to monitor, prevent, control, and clean up pollution are critical
building blocks in our decision-making. EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS)
research program, in accordance with the Agency's policy of scientific integrity,10 provides the
scientific foundation for the Agency's actions for the integrated management of air, water, and
land resources, as well as changes in traditional methods of creating and distributing goods and
services. Since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Agency has increasingly focused on
preventative and sustainable approaches to health and environmental problems. EPA's efforts in
this area support research specifically designed to address the issue of advancing sustainability
goals.
The range of research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better
understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as
advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering.
In FY 2011, EPA will initiate a new research effort in design methods and management
strategies for electronic devices to mitigate human exposure and environmental releases from the
recycling and disposal of electronic waste. In addition, EPA will sustain the biofuels research
initiative to help decision-makers better understand the risk tradeoffs associated with biofuels
production and use. The work will inform the life-cycle analysis and mandatory reporting
requirements contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act. The STS research
program also will continue efforts aimed at creating a suite of science-based sustainability
metrics that are readily understood by the public. This work will address both large and small
systems, including the implementation and tracking of sustainability metrics across the biofuels
system.
10 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-
Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/.
52
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Science and Technology
Resource Summary Table 55
Program Projects in S&T 55
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 59
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 60
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 63
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 65
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification 66
Radiation: Protection 73
Radiation: Response Preparedness 75
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 77
Climate Protection Program 78
Program Area: Enforcement 80
Forensics Support 81
Program Area: Homeland Security 83
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 84
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 88
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 94
Program Area: Indoor Air 95
Indoor Air: Radon Program 96
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 98
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 100
IT / Data Management 101
Program Area: Operations and Administration 103
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 104
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 106
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 107
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 109
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 112
Program Area: Research: Clean Air 115
Research: Global Change 116
Program Area: Research: Clean Water 122
Research: Drinking Water 123
Research: Water Quality 130
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 137
Human Health Risk Assessment 138
Research: Computational Toxicology 142
Research: Endocrine Disrupter 147
Research: Fellowships 151
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems 155
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 169
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 170
53
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 174
Research: Sustainability 175
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention 180
Research: Pesticides and Toxics 181
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 186
Drinking Water Programs 187
54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$797,065.1
2,444.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$846,049.0
2,442.5
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$846,697.0
2,469.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$648.0
26.5
Bill Language: Science and Technology
For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include
research and development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and
related costs and travel expenses; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; and other
operating expenses in support of research and development, [$846,049,000]$846,697,000, to
remain available until September 30, [2011]'2012. (Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)
Program Projects in S&T
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Climate Protection Program (other
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,918.4
$11,395.0
$2,052.4
$76,035.5
$2,484.4
$3,497.5
$105,383.2
$0.0
$15,880.0
FY2010
Enacted
$9,963.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$121,857.0
$1,000.0
$18,797.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$9,979.0
$7,697.0
$0.0
$100,761.0
$2,127.0
$4,263.0
$124,827.0
$0.0
$16,940.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$16.0
($3,746.0)
($2,398.0)
$8,979.0
$32.0
$87.0
$2,970.0
($1,000.0)
($1,857.0)
55
-------
Program Project
activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Water Sentinel
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and
Response
Safe Building
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
FY 2009
Actuals
$15,880.0
$15,880.0
$14,450.6
$16,798.2
$7,163.5
$23,961.7
$24,064.7
$648.8
$2,181.0
$14,877.3
$41,771.8
$587.0
$66,320.5
$371.0
$706.5
$1,077.5
$3,852.1
$36,892.0
$15,710.5
FY2010
Enacted
$19,797.0
$19,797.0
$15,351.0
$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0
$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0
$453.0
$762.0
$1,215.0
$4,385.0
$33,947.0
$19,177.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$16,940.0
$16,940.0
$15,909.0
$11,643.0
$4,462.0
$16,105.0
$21,703.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,895.0
$34,598.0
$594.0
$51,297.0
$461.0
$768.0
$1,229.0
$4,111.0
$30,950.0
$19,893.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,857.0)
($2,857.0)
$558.0
($6,933.0)
$12.0
($6,921.0)
($3,154.0)
($499.0)
($1,996.0)
($1,410.0)
($7,059.0)
$1.0
($13,979.0)
$8.0
$6.0
$14.0
($274.0)
($2,997.0)
$716.0
56
-------
Program Project
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Air
Research: Global Change
Subtotal, Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Water
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Subtotal, Research: Clean Water
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Fellowships
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,812.7
$12,104.4
$73,519.6
$73,519.6
$3,159.3
$2,121.9
$442.8
$5,724.0
$90,271.0
$17,264.1
$107,535.1
$43,762.7
$64,926.0
$108,688.7
$5,282.0
$41,478.1
$13,710.1
$9,948.7
$5,760.7
$76,613.3
$79,116.9
$21.8
$155,752.0
FY2010
Enacted
$10,260.0
$9,534.0
$72,918.0
$72,918.0
$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0
$81,917.0
$20,826.0
$102,743.0
$49,155.0
$61,918.0
$111,073.0
$5,700.0
$44,789.0
$20,048.0
$11,355.0
$11,083.0
$83,904.0
$75,607.0
$0.0
$159,511.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$10,349.0
$9,303.0
$70,495.0
$70,495.0
$3,806.0
$2,312.0
$546.0
$6,664.0
$85,322.0
$21,985.0
$107,307.0
$52,258.0
$68,858.0
$121,116.0
$0.0
$45,626.0
$21,855.0
$17,378.0
$17,286.0
$80,122.0
$73,971.0
$0.0
$154,093.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$89.0
($231.0)
($2,423.0)
($2,423.0)
$56.0
$33.0
$9.0
$98.0
$3,405.0
$1,159.0
$4,564.0
$3,103.0
$6,940.0
$10,043.0
($5,700.0)
$837.0
$1,807.0
$6,023.0
$6,203.0
($3,782.0)
($1,636.0)
$0.0
($5,418.0)
57
-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Drinking Water Programs
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$226,649.6
$11,696.8
$19,445.7
$28,200.0
$3,359.7
$3,359.7
$797,065.1
FY2010
Enacted
$246,786.0
$14,111.0
$27,287.0
$27,347.0
$3,637.0
$3,637.0
$846,049.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$256,238.0
$13,800.0
$25,292.0
$27,645.0
$3,827.0
$3,827.0
$846,697.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$9,452.0
($311.0)
($1,995.0)
$298.0
$190.0
$190.0
$648.0
58
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
59
-------
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$20,336.2
$9,918.4
$30,254.6
86.5
FY2010
Enacted
$20,791.0
$9,963.0
$30,754.0
88.6
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$21,178.0
$9,979.0
$31,157.0
88.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$387.0
$16.0
$403.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides regulatory and modeling support for Clean Air Allowance Trading
programs. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is a major component of EPA's plan to help
over 450 counties in the eastern U.S. meet and maintain health-based, protective air quality
standards for ozone and PM2 5. In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit Court's State of North Carolina vs. the Environmental Protection Agency
decision in December 2008, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated by EPA in May
2005, will "remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the Court's July 11,
2008] opinion" so as to "at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by
CAIR."1 The Court remanded CAIR to EPA for further rulemaking consistent with the opinion
and, concurrently, told EPA and the affected states to proceed with full and timely
implementation of the original rule provisions to cut Sulfur Dioxide (862) and Nitrogen Oxide
(NOX) emissions. CAIR uses a multi-pollutant control approach to provide states with a solution
to the problem of transported ozone and fine particulate matter (PM^.s), which is pollution that
drifts into a state from sources in upwind states. CAIR is projected to achieve large reductions of
862 and/or NOX emissions across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia.
All the affected states are expected to achieve the mandated reductions primarily by controlling
power plant emissions through an EPA-administered interstate cap-and-trade program. Under
CAIR, Phase 1, annual 862 and NOX emissions are capped and there is an additional seasonal
NOX cap for states with sources that contribute significantly to transported ozone pollution. The
CAIR annual and ozone-season NOX control programs began on schedule on January 1 and May
1, 2009, respectively. Sources and states, affected under the CAIR SO2 control program, are
monitoring and reporting emissions to EPA. Compliance with the CAIR SC>2 control provisions
began January 1, 2010. For additional information on CAIR, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/oar/cair.
EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a long-
term atmospheric deposition monitoring network, established in 1987, that serves as the nation's
' U.S. Court of Appeals for the B.C. Circuit, No. 05-1244, page 3 (decided December 23, 2008).
60
-------
primary source for atmospheric data on the dry deposition component of acid deposition, rural
ground-level ozone, and other forms of particulate and gaseous air pollution. Used in conjunction
with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) and other networks, CASTNET's
long-term datasets and data products are used to determine the efficacy of national and Regional
emission control programs through monitoring geographic patterns and temporal trends in
ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition in non-urban areas of the country. Maintaining a
robust long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of
the Acid Rain Program, CAIR, and other programs for controlling transported air pollutants.
Surface water chemistry is a direct indicator of the environmental effects of acid deposition and
enables assessment of how water bodies and aquatic ecosystems are responding to reductions in
sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Two EPA-administered programs, the Temporally Integrated
Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) program and the Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program,
were specifically designed to assess whether the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have been
effective in reducing the acidity of surface waters in sensitive areas. Both programs are operated
cooperatively with numerous partners in state agencies, academic institutions, and other Federal
agencies.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will:
• Finalize a CAIR replacement rule consistent with the Court's opinion: Conduct legal,
technical, and economic analyses to support the replacement rule. Review and evaluate
public comment to the rule proposal. Continue assessing regulatory impacts on the U.S.
economy, environment, small businesses, and local communities.
• Continue implementation and operation of the CAIR NOx and SO; control programs:
Consistent with the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in December 2008, EPA will continue timely and full implementation
of these programs so as to "preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR" during
the CAIR replacement rulemaking period.
• Continue to assist states with CAIR implementation: Provide technical assistance to
states in implementing state plans and rules for CAIR NOX and 862 control programs.
Assist states in resolving issues related to source applicability, emissions monitoring and
reporting, and the compliance supplement pool, as well as provide technical support.
Operate the three Regional interstate allowance trading programs and perform annual and
end-of-season analyses of emissions vs. allowances held.
• Continue operating infrastructure for CAIR: Effective and efficient operation of CAIR
depends critically upon ongoing maintenance and continuous improvement of the e-GOV
infrastructure supporting the electronic allowance trading and emissions reporting
systems.
• Ensure accurate and consistent results for the program: Successful air pollution control
and trading programs require accurate and consistent monitoring of emissions from
affected sources. Work will continue on performance specifications and investigating
monitoring alternatives and methods to improve the efficiency of monitor certification
and emissions data reporting.
61
-------
• Assist states with considering Regional programs for Electric Generating Units (EGUs)
outside of the CAIR Region: EPA will work with states to create flexible approaches,
such as cap-and-trade programs, and emissions averaging where they potentially could be
more cost-effective than application of source-specific emission standards.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to provide analytical support for the interagency National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). NAPAP coordinates Federal acid deposition
research and monitoring of emissions, acidic deposition, and their effects, including assessing the
costs and benefits of Title IV.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to manage CASTNET. The FY 2011 request level for
CASTNET is $3.95 million. For additional information on CASTNET, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/CASTNET/. In addition, the program will continue managing the TIME
and LTM programs for monitoring surface water chemistry and aquatic ecosystem response in
sensitive areas of the U.S. This program was transferred from the Research and Development
program to the Air and Radiation program under the FY 2010 President's Budget. The FY 2011
request level for TIME/LTM is $0.72 million.
Reducing emissions of SC>2 and NOX remains a crucial component of EPA's strategy for cleaner
air. Particulate matter can be formed from direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or smoke), but
can also be formed through chemical reactions in the air. Emissions of SO2 and NOX can be
chemically transformed into sulfate and nitrates that are very tiny particles which, when inhaled,
can cause serious respiratory problems and may lead to premature mortality. Sulfates and
nitrates can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles from the emitting source. These same small
particles are also a main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of the country,
particularly damaging in national parks known for their scenic views. Nitrogen dioxide
emissions also contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone, when
inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause serious respiratory problems.
Performance Targets:
EPA tracks the change in nitrogen deposition and sulfur deposition to assess the effectiveness of
the Acid Rain program with performance targets set for every three years. Performance
measures associated with this program are included in the Clean Air Allowance Trading Program
Project under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$16.0) This reflects an increase in contracts funding to support the finalization of the
CAIR replacement rule.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
62
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$93,700.7
$11,395.0
$105,095.7
695.8
FY2010
Enacted
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$134,634.0
$7,697.0
$142,331.0
860.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$35,015.0
($3,746.0)
$31,269.0
145.8
Program Project Description:
Federal support for the criteria pollutant and air toxics programs includes a variety of tools to
help characterize ambient air quality and the level of risk to the public from toxics in the air and
to help measure national progress toward improving air quality and reducing air toxics risk. The
program supports development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) through modeling and other
tools. EPA works with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the SIPs
and transportation conformity determinations and to help state and local governments identify
the most cost-effective control options available. The program also develops and provides
information and tools to assist state, local, and Tribal agencies as well as communities to reduce
air toxics emissions and risk specific to their local areas. Finally, the program includes activities
related to the stationary source residual risk program, which involves an assessment of source
categories subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (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).
Programs supporting mobile source air toxics reductions programs have been consolidated in the
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2 5) standards, EPA
will continue providing state and local governments with substantial assistance in developing
SIPs and implementing the conformity rule during FY 2011. EPA will ensure national
consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the U.S. and the Agency will
work with state and local air quality agencies to ensure that PM25 hot-spot analyses are
conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity regulation and guidance.
EPA also will assist areas in identifying the most cost-effective control options available and
provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement conformity.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to assist state, Tribal, and local agencies in implementing and
assessing the effectiveness of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools.
63
-------
EPA is working to implement improvements to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Federal program, within current statutory limitations, that address deficiencies in
design and implementation and identify and evaluate needed improvements. The air quality
grants and permitting program will be improved by working to update the current grant
allocation processes to ensure resources are properly targeted and by developing program
efficiency measures.
In FY 2011, EPA will work with partners to develop improved emission factors and inventories,
including a better automated, higher quality National Emissions Inventory (NEI). This effort will
include gathering improved activity databases and using geographic information systems and
satellite remote sensing, where possible, for key point, area, mobile, and fugitive source
categories and global emission events. EPA also is working on improving monitoring systems to
fill data gaps and to get a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution.
Performance Targets:
EPA, collaborating with the states, will implement Federal measures, assist with the
development of clean air plans, and develop air toxics tools to continue improving air quality (as
measured by the air quality index and other measures) and to continue reducing air toxics risk.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in the Federal Support
for Air Quality Management Program Project under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$93.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4,750.0 / -28.2 FTE) This represents the outgoing transfer of mobile source resources,
including 28.2 FTE with associated payroll of $4,097.0 and associated travel of $62.0, to
the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program in support of a sector-
based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
• (+$914.0) This represents the incoming transfer of stationary source resources from the
Federal Support for Air Toxics program. The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
has been consolidated with this program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant
approach to air quality management.
• (-$3.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
64
-------
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,168.0
$2,052.4
$26,220.4
136.1
FY2010
Enacted
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($24,446.0)
($2,398.0)
($26,844.0)
-145.8
Program Project Description:
Federal support for the air toxics program includes a variety of tools to help characterize the
level of risk to the public from toxics in the air and help measure the Agency's progress in
reducing this risk. The program develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local,
and Tribal agencies as well as communities to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to
their local areas. The program also includes activities related to the stationary source residual
risk program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
All activities in this program will be assumed by the Federal Support for Air Quality
Management Program and the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program to
support the switch to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
Performance Targets:
There are no FY 2011 performance targets associated with this Program Project because the
resources have been transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program and
the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$968.0) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities for the
stationary source program to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program
in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
• (-$1,430.07 -5.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities
for the mobile source program, including 5.4 FTE with associated payroll of $776.0, to
the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification in support of a sector-based
multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
65
-------
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$76,035.5
$76,035.5
306.0
FY2010
Enacted
$91,782.0
$91,782.0
306.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$100,761.0
$100,761.0
349.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$8,979.0
$8,979.0
43.6
Program Project Description:
The most common mobile sources of air pollution are highway motor vehicles and their fuels.
Other mobile sources, such as airplanes, ships, construction equipment and lawn mowers also
produce significant amounts of pollutants. EPA regulates all of these sources to reduce the
production of air pollution. The Agency also provides emissions and fuel economy information
for new cars, and educates consumers on the ways their actions affect the environment.
As part of its move to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management, EPA
has consolidated all mobile source work into the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification Program. Primary responsibilities include developing and implementing national
regulatory programs to reduce mobile source-related air pollution from light-duty cars and
trucks, heavy-duty trucks and buses, nonroad engines and vehicles and their fuels; evaluating
emission control technology; and providing state and local air quality regulators and
transportation planners with access to information on transportation programs and incentive-
based programs. Other activities include testing vehicles, engines and fuels, and establishing test
procedures for, and determining compliance with, Federal emissions and fuel economy
standards.
EPA works with states and local governments to ensure the technical integrity of the mobile
source controls in the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and transportation conformity
determinations. EPA also develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local, and
Tribal agencies, as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risk specific to their
local areas. Reductions in emissions of mobile source air toxics, such as diesel particulate matter
(PM), are achieved through innovative and voluntary approaches working with state, local, and
Tribal governments, as well as a variety of stakeholder groups.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to achieve results in reducing pollution from mobile sources, especially NOx
emissions associated with rulemakings finalized as part of the Agency's National Clean Diesel
Campaign. The Tier 2 Vehicle program, which took effect in 2004, will make new cars, SUVs,
and pickup trucks 77 to 95 percent cleaner than 2003 models. The Clean Trucks and Buses
program, which began in 2007, will make new highway diesel engines as much as 95 percent
66
-------
cleaner than current models. Under the Non-road Diesel Program, new fuel and engine
requirements will reduce sulfur in off-highway diesel by more than 99 percent by 2010. Under
the recently finalized Locomotive and Marine Engines Rule, new fuel and engine requirements
will reduce PM by 90 percent and NOx by 80 percent for newly-built locomotives and marine
diesel engines. Combined, these measures will prevent over 26,000 premature deaths each year,
reduce millions of tons of pollution a year, and prevent hundreds of thousands of respiratory
illnesses.
Additional emission reductions from light-duty vehicles will be a key strategy in helping areas
attain the ozone, PM, and nitrogen dioxide (NC^) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and in reducing exposure to toxics for the millions of people living, working, or going
to school near major roads. In FY 2011, EPA will work on new light-duty vehicle control
strategies (Tier 3), which could include tighter NOx standards, off-cycle standards, and PM
standards for gasoline vehicles. The Tier 3 program also will include lower-sulfur gasoline that
will enable tighter emission standards by allowing more efficient aftertreatment. Gasoline sulfur
control also will provide immediate benefits for the in-use fleet and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission reduction co-benefits. The program will address any needs for mitigation of adverse air
quality impacts that might develop from the increased use of renewable fuels (e.g., increase in
NOx due to increases in ethanol use).
In FY 2011, EPA requests additional resources to further address GHG emissions from mobile
sources as part of the Agency's efforts to meet the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge and to
respond to pending legal obligations. Additional resources are requested to develop and issue
GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles as part of the Agency's response to the Supreme Court's
Massachusetts v. EPA decision concerning GHG emissions of motor vehicles, which include
heavy-duty vehicles. EPA is also requesting additional resources to support the promulgation of
light-duty vehicle standards, and to assess and potentially develop GHG standards for other
transportation categories in response to rulemaking petitions submitted in the past several years.
EPA will participate in the appropriate international forums for ocean-going vessels
(International Maritime Organization) and aircraft (International Civil Aviation Organization) in
order to coordinate and advance GHG emission controls from these sources.
In the fuels arena, EPA will begin implementation of the new Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2)
and several other actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. EISA dramatically expanded the renewable
fuels provisions of EPAct and requires additional EPA studies in various areas of renewable fuel
use. EISA also required EPA to develop a comprehensive lifecycle GHG methodology to
implement the Act's GHG threshold requirements. In FY 2011, EPA will continue a multi-year
testing program aimed at evaluating the environmental impacts of renewable fuels. The results
from this program will be used to update the Agency's fuel effects model used to support
regulations.
In support of the new RFS2 standards, in FY 2011 EPA is upgrading its vehicle and fuel testing
capability at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) to certify and assess
the emissions and fuel economy performance of vehicles and engines using increased volumes of
renewable fuel. The expected increase in new renewable fuels introduced into commerce also
67
-------
will require additional effort by NVFEL personnel to measure and monitor critical properties and
compounds to assure these new fuels will not cause detrimental emissions or vehicle
performance impacts. In FY 2011, the Agency also will continue to implement its real-time
reporting system to ensure compliance with RFS2 provisions. In addition, the Agency will
continue to develop and update lifecycle models to allow assessment of new biofuel technologies
and to evaluate feedstocks and fuel pathways for future fuels and processes.
EPA's NVFEL will continue to conduct testing operations on motor vehicles, heavy-duty
engines, non-road engines, and fuels to certify that all vehicles, engines, and fuels that enter the
U.S. market comply with all Federal clean air and fuel economy standards. The NVFEL will
continue to conduct vehicle emission tests as part of pre-production tests, certification audits, in-
use assessments, and recall programs to support mobile source clean air programs. Tests are
conducted on a spot check basis on motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines, non-road engines, and
fuels to: 1) certify that vehicles and engines meet Federal air emission and fuel economy
standards; 2) ensure engines comply with in-use requirements; and 3) ensure fuels, fuel
additives, and exhaust compounds meet Federal standards. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to
conduct testing activities for fuel economy, Tier II testing, reformulated gasoline, future fleets,
alternative fuel vehicle conversion certifications, Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) evaluations,
certification audits, and recall programs. In addition to these testing activities, EPA also will be
expanding its compliance testing of heavy-duty and non-road engines.
In FY 2011, EPA anticipates reviewing and approving approximately 5,000 vehicle and engine
emissions certification requests, including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty diesel engines,
nonroad engines, marine engines, locomotives and others. This represents a significant expansion
in EPA's certification burden over previous years, due in part to the addition of certification
requirements for stationary engines and for marine and small spark-ignited engines. Certification
and compliance of advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, light-duty
diesel applications, and advanced after-treatment for heavy-duty highway compliance to meet
standards taking effect for 2010 models also will be a major focus in FY 2011. The Agency also
will continue to review the in-use verification program data submitted by vehicle manufacturers
to determine whether there are any emissions compliance issues. In addition, EPA will continue
to expand its web-based compliance information system to be used by manufacturers and EPA
staff to house compliance data for all regulated vehicles and engines. EPA will continue to be
responsible for vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and gas guzzler fuel economy
testing and for providing the fuel economy data to the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Energy, and the Internal Revenue Service. In FY 2011, EPA expects to expend
significant resources on ensuring compliance with certification as well as in-use requirements
for foreign-built engines and equipment.
A rule establishing onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements for nonroad engines will be
developed in 2011. To meet the new nonroad diesel standards, engine manufacturers will
produce engines that are going to be more complex and dependent on electronic controls, similar
to highway engines. OBD standards are needed to ensure that engines are properly maintained
and compliant, ensuring that the full benefits of the emission standards are realized in-use. In
addition, EPA will begin implementation of an in-use compliance testing program for non-road
diesel engines to be conducted by diesel engine manufacturers per a consent decree. This
68
-------
program is vital to ensuring that new engine standards are actually met in-use under real-world
conditions. Other new regulatory programs include a rulemaking to address off-cycle emissions
from heavy-duty trucks through the application of a supplemental test procedure; a rulemaking
(in response to court remand) justifying and updating the 2012 model year standards for
snowmobiles; and the promulgation of new jet aircraft engine emission standards that would
align Federal rules with international standards and propose other controls and program upgrades
under Clean Air Act (CAA) authority. In addition, the Agency will evaluate the need to control
lead in aviation gasoline and its use in piston engines.
EPA will continue to support implementation of existing vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations
including the Tier II light-duty (LD) vehicle program, the Mobile Sources Air Toxics (MSAT)
programs, the 2007-2010 Heavy-Duty (HD) Diesel standards, and the Non-Road Diesel Tier 4
standards (and earlier non-road standards) in order to ensure the successful delivery of cleaner
vehicles, equipment, and fuel. In-use compliance is an essential element of EPA's regulatory
programs ensuring that emission standards are actually met under real-world conditions. EPA
will continue implementation of a manufacturer-run in-use compliance surveillance program for
highway heavy-duty diesel, locomotive, marine spark ignition (SI) and large SI engines.
Other FY 2011 implementation activities include continued evaluation and development of the
Agency's new fuel economy labelling program and ongoing assessment and analysis of
emissions and fuel economy compliance data. EPA also will conduct follow-up implementation
work related to the mobile source air toxics rulemaking in preparation for the 2011 program start
date (work includes the assessment of refineries' pre-compliance reports and early credit
generation, in order to monitor the viability of the benzene credit market). The Agency also will
continue implementation activities for the Locomotives/Marine rule finalized in 2008 and for
small gasoline engine standards that began with model year 2009.
EPA's emission models provide the overarching architecture that supports EPA's regulatory
programs, generating emission factors and inventories needed to quantify emission reductions.
EPA continues to improve in this area with the development of the new mobile source emission
model, MOVES. MOVES is greatly improving the Agency's ability to support the development
of emission control programs, as well as provide support to states in their determination of
program needs to meet air quality standards. The CAA requires regular updates of the emission
models to account for technology changes and new emission data. Assessing mobile source
emissions requires sustained and ongoing emission research resources. In FY 2011 EPA will
continue improving MOVES by implementing emission testing programs to collect the necessary
information from new technologies, incorporating new emission data into the model, and
expanding the application of the model to include additional nonroad sources and toxic
emissions.
Through the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) "Partnership for Clean Fuels
and Vehicles" (PCFV) with developing countries, EPA will continue addressing the impact to
human health and the environment from motor vehicles in developing countries. EPA will focus
its efforts on two priorities: reducing sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline, and concurrently
introducing cleaner vehicle technologies. These emissions reductions will reduce pollution that
is transported across our borders and the northern hemisphere into the United States, providing
69
-------
important air quality and public health benefits to the United States. In addition, the combination
of low sulfur diesel and diesel particulate filters can significantly reduce black carbon, which is
growing in importance because of its negative impact on climate change. The PCFV, based on
past efforts supported by EPA, has been very successful in achieving the elimination of lead in
gasoline in many areas of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa. The emphasis of the PCFV
is now on lower sulfur levels in fuel and clean vehicle technologies.
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards, EPA
will continue to provide state and local governments with substantial assistance in developing
SIPs and implementing the conformity rule during this period. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to
ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the United
States. EPA will continue to ensure consistency in adequacy findings for motor vehicle
emissions budgets in air quality plans, which are used in conformity determinations. EPA will
continue to work with state and local transportation and air quality agencies to ensure that PM2 5
hot-spot analyses are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity
regulation and guidance. In addition, EPA will work with states and local governments to ensure
the technical integrity of the mobile source controls in the SIPs for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
air quality. EPA also will assist areas in identifying the most cost-effective control options
available and provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement conformity.
EPA will partner with states, tribes, and local governments to create a comprehensive
compliance program to ensure that vehicles and engines pollute less. EPA will use advanced in-
use measurement techniques and other sources of in-use data to monitor the performance of On-
board Diagnostics (OBD) systems on vehicle models to make sure that OBD is a reliable check
on the emissions systems. In FY 2008, basic and/or enhanced vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
testing was being performed in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from
EPA. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to assist states in enhancing operating programs to deal
with new fuel, vehicle, and technology requirements. EPA will continue to assist state, Tribal,
and local agencies in implementing and assessing the effectiveness of national clean air
programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop incentives
for different economic sectors (construction, ports, freight, and agriculture) to address the
emissions from existing diesel engines. Work is being done across these sectors at the national
and Regional level to clean up the existing fleet. Reducing emissions from diesel engines will
help localities meet the Agency's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and reduce exposure
to air toxics from diesel engines. EPA also has developed several emissions testing protocols that
will provide potential purchasers of emission control technology a consistent, third party
evaluation of emission control products. EPA has developed partnerships with state and local
governments, industry, and private companies to create project teams to help fleet owners create
the most cost-effective retrofit programs.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal
(HPPG), addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases (specified in full in Appendix
A).
70
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Limit the increase of
CO emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources
compared to a 2000
baseline.
FY 2009
Target
1.52 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
1.69M
FY2011
Target
1.86 M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2009
Target
1.54 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
1.71 M
FY2011
Target
1.88 M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from
Mobile Sources
FY 2009
Target
3.05 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
3.39 M
FY2011
Target
3.73 M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of PM- 10
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2009
Target
111,890
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
124,322
FY2011
Target
136,755
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
TonsofPM-2.5
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2009
Target
110,190
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
122,434
FY2011
Target
134,677
Units
Tons
Other recent rulemakings finalized by the Agency include the control of air toxics from mobile
sources (the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule in 2007), significantly reducing hydrocarbon air
toxics while delivering PM co-benefits, and the establishment of first-ever evaporative emission
standards for small spark ignition and recreational marine engines (the Small Si/Recreational
Marine Engine Rule in 2008). All together, EPA estimates that six recent rulemakings, including
the 2007 Heavy Duty, Nonroad Diesel Tier 4, and Light Duty Tier 2 rules, will yield
approximately $200 billion in combined benefits annually by 2030.
EPA, collaborating with the states, will implement Federal measures and assist with the
development of clean air plans to continue to improve air quality as measured by the air quality
index and other measures.
71
-------
Performance targets for reduction of toxicity-weighted emissions also are supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$790.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4,000.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for modifications and enhancements to
the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, which were funded at $10.3 million
in FY 2010. EPA will evaluate to what extent additional modifications to the laboratory
are needed.
• (+$2,050.07 +6.0 FTE) This reflects additional resources to support the promulgation of
GHG standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles, including 6.0 FTE with associated payroll of $797.0. These resources will also
advance the President's policy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve
fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States.
• (-$138.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+3,996.0 / +4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to support additional needs for heavy-
duty vehicle and engine GHG emission standards and for initial analysis and technology
assessment efforts needed to support potential development of GHG emission standards
for other mobile source categories, including 4.0 FTE with associated payroll of $531.0.
This analysis and technology assessment work will include inventory modeling,
compliance modeling, cost estimation, and air quality benefits analysis.
• (+$6,181.0 / +33.6 FTE) This reflects an incoming transfer of mobile source resources
and FTE which had been distributed across multiple programs to the Federal Vehicle and
Fuels Standards and Certification program, including 33.6 FTE with associated payroll of
$4,873.0. This consolidation supports the goals, objectives, and performances measures
of the overall mobile source program.
• (+$100.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-766If); Motor Vehicle Information Cost Savings Act; Alternative Motor
Fuels Act of 1988; National Highway System Designation Act; NEP Act, SAFETEA-LU of
2005; EPA of 2005; EISA of 2007.
72
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,962.0
$2,484.4
$2,299.2
$14,745.6
85.8
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$11,439.0
$2,127.0
$2,593.0
$16,159.0
88.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$144.0
$32.0
$98.0
$274.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the ongoing radiation protection capability at the National Air and
Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Radiation and
Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada. These nationally-
recognized laboratories provide radioanalytical and mixed waste testing and analysis of
environmental samples to support site assessment, clean-up, and response activities.
Both labs provide technical support for conducting site-specific radiological characterizations
and cleanups, using the best available science to develop risk assessment tools. The labs also
develop guidance, in collaboration with the public, industry, states, tribes, and other
governments, for cleaning up sites that are contaminated with radioactive materials.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA, in cooperation with states, tribes, and other Federal agencies, will provide
ongoing site characterization and analytical support for site assessment activities, remediation
technologies, and measurement and information systems. EPA also will provide training and
direct site assistance including field survey and monitoring, laboratory analysis, health and
safety, and risk assessment support at sites with actual or suspected radioactive contamination.
Some of these sites are located near at-risk communities, emphasizing the Administration's
commitment to protecting vulnerable communities.
EPA's laboratories will continue to support EPA Regional Superfund Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), providing laboratory and field-based
radioanalytical and mixed waste analyses. They also provide technical services, guidance, and
standardized procedures.
Performance Targets:
EPA developed several outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this
program in response to OMB recommendations. The measures all have baseline data and some
historical data that provide a benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets.
73
-------
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish its FY 2011 strategic plan
goal of protecting public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated
radioactive waste, and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in Radiation Response
Preparedness Programs under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$33.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$2.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and teleconferencing.
• (+$1.0) This is an increase for contracts to support the radiation lab work.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and
Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive
Evnrionmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
SARA of 1986 ; EPA of 1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980,
National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982; Public
Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA); Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act. of 1992.
74
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,672.6
$3,497.5
$6,170.1
40.2
FY2010
Enacted
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$3,088.0
$4,263.0
$7,351.0
42.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$11.0
$87.0
$98.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama,
and the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, Nevada,
are nationally recognized radiological laboratories that provide field sampling and analyses,
laboratory analyses, and direct scientific support to respond to radiological and nuclear incidents.
This includes measuring and monitoring radioactive materials and assessing radioactive
contamination in the environment. This program comprises direct scientific field and laboratory
activities to support preparedness, planning, training, and procedures development. In addition,
selected personnel are members of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) and
are trained to provide direct expert scientific and technical assistance in the field.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response program, will
continue to improve the level of readiness to support Federal radiological emergency response
and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The laboratory RERT members
will conduct training and exercises to enhance and demonstrate their ability to fulfill EPA
responsibilities in the field, using mobile analytical systems. Laboratory staff also will support
field operations with fixed laboratory analyses and provide rapid and accurate radionuclide
analyses in environmental matrices.2
Also in FY 2011, both labs will continue to develop rapid-deployment capabilities to ensure that
field teams are ready to provide scientific data, analyses and updated analytical techniques for
radiation emergency response programs across the Agency. The laboratories will maintain
readiness for radiological emergency responses; participate in emergency exercises; provide on-
site scientific support to state radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation
remediation; participate in the Protective Action Guidance (PAG) development and application;
and respond, as required, to radiological incidents.
2 Additional information can be accessed at: http: //www. epa. gov/radiation/rert/
75
-------
EPA developed several outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this
program in response to OMB recommendations. The measures all have baseline data and some
historical data which provide a benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets.
Performance Targets:
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish its goal of protecting public
health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated radioactive material and to
minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure. Performance measures associated
with this program project are included in Radiation Response Preparedness Programs under
Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$76.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$5.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$16.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and
Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Executive Order 12241
of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of
November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988;
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA); Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and EAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201
(Nunn-Lugar II).
76
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
77
-------
Climate Protection Program
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$97,184.7
$15,880.0
$113,064.7
223.9
FY2010
Enacted
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$123,050.0
$16,940.0
$139,990.0
259.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$10,006.0
($2,857.0)
$7,149.0
33.0
Program Project Description:
EPA manages the Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) and the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
programs, which develop advanced clean and fuel-efficient vehicle technology to better protect
the environment and save energy. These programs are designed to help recognize and remove
barriers in the marketplace and to more rapidly deploy cost-effective low greenhouse gas (GHG)
technologies into the transportation sector of the economy and support the Administration's
priority of taking action on climate change. (For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology).
The emphasis of CAT program work is research and collaboration with the automotive, trucking,
and fleet industries. Through cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA), EPA
plans to continue demonstrating its unique hydraulic hybrid technology and advanced clean-
engine technologies in vehicles, such as large SUVs, pickup trucks, urban delivery trucks, school
buses, shuttle buses, and refuse trucks.
EPA has installed its unique hydraulic hybrid technology in five different types of demonstration
chassis/vehicles (for different vocations) which are being used by EPA to lead technology
transfer efforts necessary to bring about the initial commercial introduction of significant
elements of EPA's cost-effective low greenhouse gas technologies by vehicle manufacturers.
EPA's FY2011 goal is to uphold technology transfer commitments for hydraulic hybrid delivery
truck commercialization through evaluation, troubleshooting and support of pre-production
trucks being tested in real-world service, and determine the most efficient and durable large scale
pilot-production configuration
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Clean Automotive Technology Program will:
• Continue the transfer of EPA's advances in hydraulic hybrid technologies (promote
adoption of technology and technical assistance), providing continuity in EPA's
commitments to the truck and fleet industry for development and deployment. In
addition, the program will continue the transfer of EPA's advances in clean diesel
78
-------
combustion technologies, and promote the adoption of technology and technical
assistance by providing continuity in EPA's commitments to the automotive and truck
industry for development and deployment.
• Continue field tests currently underway and planned for hydraulic-hybrid and clean
engine technologies achieving better fuel economy than the typical baseline vehicles.
• Continue demonstration of the effectiveness of the Clean Automotive Technology
Program's high-efficiency, low GHG, clean combustion E-85/M-85 alcohol engine in a
series hydraulic hybrid vehicle.
• Demonstrate the effectiveness of the Clean Automotive Technology Program's high-
efficiency, clean combustion gasoline homogeneous-charge compression ignition (HCCI)
engine when used with a series hydraulic hybrid vehicle.
• Continue work on our hydraulic hybrid/clean engine demonstration partnership with the
California South Coast Air Quality Management District. The work will demonstrate the
low greenhouse gas potential possible from a shuttle bus equipped with series hydraulic
hybrid technology and powered by the world's first HCCI engine which gets diesel
efficiency from gasoline fuel without the need for costly diesel aftertreatment. The
partnership also will begin its initial work on ways to demonstrate the use of clean low
greenhouse gas renewable fuel with hydraulic hybrid vehicles.
Performance Targets:
EPA is working through its technology transfer demonstration projects with industry to develop
performance data that definitively quantifies the "real-world" greenhouse gas reduction potential
of these clean automotive technologies. Initial "real-world" test data will begin coming in from
the various demonstration programs with industry in 2010. The Agency will use the data to
develop performance measures for the Clean Automotive Technologies program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,976.0) This reduction reflects a phase down of the Federal cost-share for California
technology demonstration partnerships (with South Coast Air Quality Management District,
California Air Resources Board, and California Energy Commission).
• (-$1,000.0) Funding will be discontinued in this appropriation for the ENERGY STAR
program since ENERGY STAR work under the Science and Technology appropriation
will be completed in FY 2010. Funding for ENERGY STAR is continued in the
Environmental Programs and Management appropriation.
• (+$119.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104, and 108; Pollution
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6605; NEPA, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section
1103;FTTA, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a.
79
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
80
-------
Forensics Support
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,450.6
$2,695.9
$17,146.5
97.6
FY2010
Enacted
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,909.0
$2,501.0
$18,410.0
105.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$558.0
$51.0
$609.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases as well as technical expertise for
Agency compliance efforts. This work is critical to establishing non-compliance and building
viable enforcement cases. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) is a fully
accredited environmental forensics center under International Standards Organization (ISO)
17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories. NEIC's accreditation
standard has been customized to cover both laboratory and field activities.
NEIC collaborates with other Federal, state, local, and Tribal enforcement organizations to
provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation, and case resolution
activities in support of the Agency's civil enforcement program. The program coordinates with
the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to
provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.3
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2011 include focused
refinement of single and multi-media compliance monitoring investigation approaches,
customized laboratory methods to solve unusual enforcement case challenges, and applied
research and development in both laboratory and field applications. In response to case needs,
the NEIC will conduct applied research and development to identify, develop, and deploy new
capabilities, test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques, and provide technology
transfer to other enforcement personnel involving environmental measurement and forensic
applications. Consistent with these activities and working with appropriate organizations across
the Agency, NEIC also will play a role in evaluating the scientific basis and/or technical
enforceability of select EPA regulations. Additionally, NEIC will apply its technical resources in
support of the Agency's national enforcement priorities.
3 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
81
-------
In FY 2011, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental
data measurements to maintain its accreditation. The program also will continue development of
emerging technologies in field measurement and laboratory analytical techniques.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$536.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$92.0) This change reflects an increase in support costs for the forensics laboratory at
the NEIC.
• (-$70.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
(RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); EPCRA.
82
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
83
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,837.2
$23,961.7
$1,767.0
$32,565.9
47.8
FY2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,415.0
$16,105.0
$0.0
$18,520.0
28.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($4,421.0)
($6,921.0)
($1,760.0)
($13,102.0)
-21.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides resources to coordinate and support protection of the nation's critical
water infrastructure from terrorist threats and all-hazard events. Reducing risk in the water
sector requires a multi-step approach to: determine risk through vulnerability, threat, and
consequence assessments; reduce risk through security enhancements; prepare to effectively
respond to and recover from incidents; and measure the water sector's progress in risk reduction.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response and Preparedness Act of 2002
(Bioterrorism Act) also provides that EPA support the water sector in such activities. See
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will move to the next phase of the Water Security Initiative (WSI) pilot
program, focusing on support and evaluation activities. EPA also will continue to support water
sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction
(WATR), to protect the nation's critical water infrastructure. The Agency will continue to
integrate the Regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot laboratories into a national,
consistent program. All of these efforts support the Agency's responsibilities and commitments
under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), as defined within the Water Sector
Specific Plan, which includes, for example, specific milestones for work related to the WSI, the
Water Laboratory Alliance, and metric development.
The FY 2011 request includes $10.4 million for WSI support and evaluation activities and $1.2
million for WATR. The request supports technical assistance for the existing pilots, research
efforts on evaluating chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) analytical methods and event
detection software, and assistance in conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons learned from
the pilots to the water sector. In FY 2011, EPA will begin focusing on calibrating the
contaminant warning systems and conducting extensive and thorough evaluations of each pilot.
The Agency also will continue to prepare and refine a series of guidance documents for water
utilities on designing, deploying, and testing contamination warning systems based on additional
lessons learned from the pilots.
84
-------
Water Security Initiative
EPA's goal is to develop a "robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance and
monitoring system" for drinking water and a water laboratory network that would support water
surveillance and emergency response activities. The overall goal of the initiative is to design and
demonstrate an effective system for timely detection and appropriate response to drinking water
contamination threats and incidents through a pilot program that would have broad application to
the nation's drinking water utilities in high threat cities.
WSI consists of five general components: (1) enhanced physical security monitoring; (2) water
quality monitoring; (3) routine and triggered sampling for high priority contaminants; (4) public
health surveillance; and (5) consumer complaint surveillance. Recent simulation analyses
underscore the importance of a contaminant warning system that integrates all five components
of event detection, as different contaminants are detected by different sequences of triggers or
"alarms."
WSI is intended to demonstrate the concept of an effective contamination warning system that
drinking water utilities in high threat cities of all sizes and characteristics could adopt.
Resources appropriated to date have enabled EPA to award a total of five pilots for the WSI.
In FY 2011, the Agency will move to the next stage of the pilots which is an extensive validation
in the field. In the absence of an actual contamination event, much of the evaluation of the pilots
will occur through reviewing, for example, the success of conducting sample analysis in
response to a trigger. EPA will quickly share information learned from the pilots with other
water utilities, rather than waiting for the pilots' conclusion before disseminating key results.
For example, EPA has published several documents that address designing a contamination
warning system, operating the system, and developing consequence management plans.
Evaluation efforts will be carried out in collaboration with other Federal agencies and a users
group consisting of the pilots and other progressive utilities.
Water Laboratory Alliance
In a contamination event, the sheer volume or unconventional type of samples will quickly
overwhelm the capacity or capability of a single laboratory. To address this deficiency, EPA has
established a national alliance of laboratories harnessed from the range of existing lab resources
from the local (e.g., water utility) to the Federal levels (e.g., CDC's Laboratory Response
Network) into a Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA). The WLA focuses solely on water and
represents the water component of the EPA's Environmental Response Laboratory Network
(ERLN). The ERLN is a network with a similar purpose as the WLA but will focus on analyses
of all other environmental matrices. The WLA will reduce the time necessary for confirming an
intentional contamination event in drinking water and speed response and decontamination
efforts. Implementation of the WLA is progressing through the establishment of eleven regional
networks consisting of state public health and environmental laboratories, drinking water
utilities, and EPA Regional laboratories that collectively compose regional laboratory response
preparedness systems. EPA has integrated the eleven Regional Laboratory Response Plans into a
single National Plan. In FY 2011, EPA will focus its efforts on conducting exercises, within the
85
-------
framework of this National Plan, and will work to expand the membership of the WLA with the
intention of achieving nationwide coverage. In addition, EPA will continue to support the
Regional laboratory networks by providing laboratories and utilities with access to supplemental
analytical capability and capacity, improved preparedness for analytical support to an emergency
situation, and coordinated and standardized data reporting systems and analytical methods.
Under the WLA, EPA also will validate methods for contaminants of high concern in drinking
water, about 90 percent of which currently lack validated methods. EPA has established
Regional laboratory response plans and networks focused on drinking water contamination
response for each of EPA's ten regions. In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to build these
regional alliances to provide laboratories and utilities with access to supplemental analytical
capability and capacity, improved preparedness for analytical support to an emergency situation,
and coordinated and standardized data reporting systems and analytical methods.
Water Sector-Specific Agency Responsibilities
EPA is the sector-specific Agency "responsible for infrastructure protection activities" for the
water sector (drinking water and wastewater utilities). EPA is responsible for developing and
providing tools and training on improving security to the 52,000 community water systems and
16,000 publicly-owned treatment works.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue working to ensure that water sector utilities have tools and
information to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, other intentional
acts, and natural disasters. The following preventive and preparedness activities will be
implemented for the water sector in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and states' homeland security and water sector officials:
• Continue to develop and conduct exercises to prepare utilities, emergency responders,
and decision-makers to evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and contamination
threats and events;
• Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance to ensure that water and wastewater
utilities and emergency responders react rapidly and effectively to intentional
contamination and other incidents. Tools include: information on high priority
contaminants, incident command protocols, sampling and detection protocols and
methods, and treatment options;
• Conduct training sessions and outreach on EPA's Consequence Analysis Tool, which
allows water systems to quantify the public health and economic consequences of
specific types of events;
• Support WATR through continuing to conduct additional training sessions for drinking
water systems, serving over 100,000 people, and to implement metrics for gauging the
reduction of security and resiliency risk at these systems;
• Support the establishment of mutual aid agreements among utilities to improve recovery
times;
• Provide an expanded set of tools (e.g., best security practices, incident command system
and mutual aid training, contaminant databases, decontamination guidance) in order to
keep the water sector current with evolving water security priorities;
86
-------
• Test and refine a risk assessment tool that will enable utilities to address the risks from all
hazards, including climate change impacts;
• Continue to implement specific recommendations of the Water Decontamination Strategy
as developed by EPA and water sector stakeholders (e.g., defining roles and
responsibilities of local, state, and Federal agencies during an event); and
• Develop annual assessments, as required under the National Infrastructure Protection
Plan (NIPP), to describe existing water security efforts and progress in achieving the
sector's key metrics.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Human Health objective. Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$86.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$6,968.0) This reduction reflects completion of funding for the establishment of five
full-scale contamination warning system demonstration pilots in public water systems
under the Water Security Initiative (WSI). In FY 2011, the remaining funding for this
program will still be needed for WSI outreach, support, and evaluation activities.
• (-$39.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
EPCRA.
87
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Radiation
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks; Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,054.1
$41,771.8
$55,479.4
$100,305.3
187.8
FY2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,012.0
$34,598.0
$42,274.0
$78,884.0
181.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,411.0)
($7,059.0)
($11,306.0)
($19,776.0)
6.8
Program Project Description:
Through research, development, and technical support activities, EPA's Homeland Security
Research Program (HSRP) enhances the Nation's preparedness, response, and recovery
capabilities for homeland security large-scale catastrophic incidents involving chemical,
biological, or radiological threats and attacks. The range of research programs and initiatives
will both continue to develop a better understanding of the scientific basis of our environmental
and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through
approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering. EPA continues to evaluate tools and
capabilities so that cost effective response and recovery approaches can be identified for future
use by the response community, elected and appointed decision-makers, and risk managers.
Research will further state-of-the-art approaches to address all phases of response and recovery
to ensure public and worker safety, protect property, and facilitate recovery. The Agency also
continues to work with other Federal agencies and organizations, through collaborative research
efforts, to strengthen remediation and decontamination capabilities.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA homeland security research on chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) contaminants
will continue to fill critical gaps in our ability to effectively respond to and recover from threats
and attacks, including large-scale catastrophic incidents. EPA has unique knowledge and
expertise related to decontamination and disposal of contaminated materials. Additionally, the
Agency has demonstrated results meeting the needs of decision-makers and responders across
government and industry.
FY 2011 Homeland Security Research Program funds will be used to deliver science and
engineering research results to the program's customers to better facilitate and enable their
ability to carry out their homeland security missions. Customer needs, identified jointly, are the
88
-------
primary consideration used in prioritizing research activities. Key customers include EPA's
Water, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Air and Radiation programs, among others.
EPA's research program provides support and assistance in interactions with water utilities to
help ensure the nation's water systems are secure and drinking water is acceptable. The
Agency's research program also is increasing its responsiveness to the science needs of the EPA
response community (National Decontamination Team, Environmental Response Team,
Radiological Emergency Response Team, Removal Managers, and On-Scene Coordinators).
Research will focus on providing tools and support to facilitate response to and recovery from
incidents involving CBR agents. Along with this customer focus, the program has enhanced
communication throughout EPA's Homeland Security program and the Regional Offices to
improve collaboration and to ensure that needs are met.
Decontamination Research:
EPA's decontamination research program directly supports the Agency's National Response
Plan (NRP) as well as its homeland security responsibilities. In many cases, the research
program also supports the Department of Homeland Security's needs for EPA expertise in a
number of key areas including materials decontamination and disposal, threat assessment, and
sampling and analytical methods. Activities in FY 2011 include the following:
• Threat and consequence assessment research will continue to focus on products and
information to aid decision-makers in assessing risks to human health from biological and
chemical agents and to further identify research gaps. EPA will collect, generate, and
evaluate data on the toxicity, infectivity, mechanism of action, fate, transport, and
exposure consequences for CBR contaminants. Data will be used to develop
relationships of human response to varying doses of biological organisms to assist in the
development of cleanup goals. Research will continue to identify risks during incidents
and develop improved methods to communicate those risks to decision-makers and the
public.
• Technology testing and evaluation research will continue to develop innovative methods
and test commercially-available technologies. These efforts will enhance the Nation's
ability to detect and decontaminate CBR contaminants resulting from terrorist attacks on
infrastructure and outdoor areas such as urban centers.
• Response capability enhancement research will continue to support the development of
the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN). EPA will continue to expand
the Standardized Analytical Methods (SAM) and create Reference Laboratory capability.
SAM identifies high risk CBR agents and analytical methods for the ERLN that are
required to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and document restoration.
Reference Laboratories serve as an authoritative source in the ERLN for method
development, verification, and validation.
• Decontamination and consequence management research will continue to develop and
improve decontamination and disposal techniques and technologies for CBR
contaminants. This research includes the remediation and clean-up of building exteriors
89
-------
and infrastructure (e.g., subways, bridges, stadiums, airports, train stations, rail lines,
highways, drinking water and wastewater systems). It also involves the clean-up of
various outdoor areas (e.g., walks, streets, parks) in both urban and non-urban areas, as
well as the safe disposal of contaminated materials and decontamination residue.
Decontamination research will produce many science and engineering products in FY 2011 to
support EPA's National Response Plan and first responders in carrying out their homeland
security missions. The following are several key activities to be completed in FY 2011:
• Development and verification of analytical and sampling methods for CBR agents in the
environment.
• Development of health-based Provisional Advisory Levels (PALs) for 12 chemical agents
to guide responders on human health risk of exposure to toxic industrial chemicals and
chemical warfare agents. PALs apply to exposure durations ranging from 24 hours to
two years. They complement the Acute Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGLs) program,
which derives limits for exposure durations of up to eight hours.
• Understanding outdoor surface deposition, adhesion, and reaerosolization of anthrax.
• Evaluation of techniques for decontaminating surfaces contaminated with ricin.
• Evaluation of technologies for decontamination of building materials contaminated by
radiological agents.
• Evaluation of background soil concentration ranges of anthrax in U.S. soils.
• Summary of work on the use of spray technologies for decontamination of chemical
agent contaminated surfaces.
Water Infrastructure Protection Research:
Water Infrastructure Protection Research will focus on developing, testing, demonstrating,
communicating, and implementing enhanced methods for detection, treatment, and containment
of CBR agents and bulk industrial chemicals intentionally introduced into drinking water and
wastewater systems. This is consistent with the Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan (CIPP),
developed for water infrastructure, and with the Water Security Research and Technical Support
Action Plan. The program will produce many science and engineering products in FY 2011 to
support EPA's Water Program and water utilities in carrying out their homeland security
missions. The following are several key activities to be completed in FY 2011:
• Determination of the persistence of contaminants in drinking water distribution systems
and the effectiveness of decontamination techniques.
• Evaluation of methods to contain and treat wastewater generated from decontamination
efforts and assess requirements for its discharge to treatment works or water bodies.
• Development of decontamination protocols and technologies for drinking water and
wastewater systems.
• Determination of the impacts of flushing water infrastructure following contamination.
• Update of the Blast Vulnerability Assessment Model to include underground storage
tanks.
90
-------
Radiation Monitoring:
Maintenance of the RadNet air monitoring network supports EPA's responsibilities under the
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework (NRF). The network
includes deployable monitors and near real-time stationary monitors.
Through FY 2010, EPA expects to install at least 134 monitors providing near real-time radiation
monitoring coverage for each of the 100 most populous U.S. cities as well as expanded
geographic coverage. In FY 2011, the Agency will maintain the expanded RadNet air
monitoring network. These near real-time monitors replaced or augmented the pre-existing
system of 60 conventional air samplers. Fixed stations will operate routinely and in conjunction
with as many as 40 deployable monitors following a radiological incident. With the expanded
RadNet air monitoring network, average response time and data dissemination will be reduced
from days to hours and will provide the Agency and first responders with greater access to data,
improving officials' ability to make decisions about protecting public health and the environment
during and/or after an incident. Additionally, the data will be used by scientists to better
characterize the effect of a radiological incident.
Biodefense:
EPA will focus on filling critical gaps in microbial resistance, efficacy test protocols for
decontamination products, and decontamination tool boxes for bioterrorism agents.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of efficient and
effective clean-ups and
safe disposal of
contamination wastes.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
85
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
80
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of water
security initiatives.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
80
Units
Percent
Unassociated with the proposed reduction in funding, the Homeland Security Program will be
piloting an effort to set more ambitious performance targets. The program is expanding the
scope and ambitiousness of research to be completed each year in order to speed the delivery of
that research to decision-makers. Setting stretch goals that will result in achieving 80-90%
performance levels will provide program managers more meaningful information to manage and
improve program performance over time.
91
-------
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. In FY 2011, the program plans
to meet its targets of completing and delivering planned outputs in support of: 1) the efficient and
effective cleanup and safe disposal of decontamination wastes, 2) the Water Security Initiative,
3) the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of cleanup goals and procedures following
contamination, 4) the National Laboratory Response Network, and 5) the validation of
standardized methods for evaluating the efficacy of antimicrobial products against a variety of
biological pathogens. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its FY 2011 strategic plan goal of protecting
public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA-regulated radioactive waste
and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure. In addition, the program
developed an efficiency measure that demonstrates that the program utilizes total resources
efficiently.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,526.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$5.0) This reflects adjustments to IT and telecommunications resources. Realignment
of these resources is based on FTE allocations.
• (-$78.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$190.0 / -2.6 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities. These realignments are based on FTE
allocations as well as scientific equipment needs.
• (-$1,449.0) This change reflects a shift of resources for the Agency's water security and
decontamination research activities. The extramural dollars reflect the transfer of
extramural funding to payroll.
• (+10.0 FTE) The change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. FTE will assist in water
security and decontamination efforts.
• (-$4,009.0 / -0.6 FTE) This reflects a reduction in the areas of water security, threat and
consequence assessment, and safe buildings research due to the decreasing need for
Water Security Initiative modeling support and a shift in focus to higher priority Agency
needs.
92
-------
• (-$1,764.0) This reflects decreased support for homeland security pesticides activities
due to substantial development and validation of methods to evaluate the efficacy of
antimicrobial products against bioterrorism agents.
• (-$499.0) This reflects a reduction to audits and training to support national radiological
laboratory capacity and capability as the Agency focuses on higher priority areas.
• (-$591.0) This reflects a reduction for EPA's RadNet national environmental radiation
monitoring network as expansion of RadNet's geographic coverage to include the most
at-risk populations is complete.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization
Plan #3 of 1970; CAA; CERCLA; SARA; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National
Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of
Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988; Public Health Service Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; SOW A; Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization Act
of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response Plan; Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; TSCA; Oil Pollution Act; Pollution
Prevention Act; RCRA; EPCRA; CWA; FIFRA; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; FQPA;
Ocean Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Executive
Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; PRIA.
93
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,648.8
$587.0
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$16,999.3
5.1
FY2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,391.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,249.0
3.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$22.0
$1.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in
the event of an emergency. These efforts also protect the capability of EPA's vital laboratory
infrastructure assets. Specifically, funds within this appropriation support security needs for the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to provide enhanced physical security for the NVFEL and
its employees. This funding supports the incremental cost of security enhancements required as
part of an Agency security assessment review.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.0) This increase supports the security needs of the NVFEL.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
94
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
95
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Program Area: Indoor Air
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,347.1
$371.0
$5,718.1
39.9
FY2010
Enacted
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,615.0
$461.0
$6,076.0
37.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($251.0)
$8.0
($243.0)
-2.3
Program Project Description:
The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV is the
only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology radon laboratory. The R&IE radon
laboratory supports EPA's radon program by providing exposure services to local, state, and
Federal radon programs and to privatized radon proficiency programs. The R&IE radon
laboratory also distributes and analyzes radon test kits for community-based environmental
justice partners with a focus on tribes.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to target its radon laboratory resources to several key areas:
radon exposure services to support local, state, and Federal radon programs; radon laboratory
inter-comparisons and device verification exposures to support privatized radon proficiency
programs; and test kits and analyses for community-based environmental justice partners. As
part of its environmental justice efforts, EPA will distribute 2,000 radon kits to our network of
partner organizations and community-based environmental justice partners and analyze 100
percent of returned radon kits. EPA's radon technical assistance and environmental justice work
are relatively low cost and provide a proven health risk reduction benefit to radon professionals
and organizations as well as to the underserved community.
The Indoor Air program is not regulatory; instead, EPA works toward its goal by conducting
research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary education and
outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements and
improving transparency by making all aspects of the State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) program
performance/results data available to the public via our website4 or other easily accessible
means.
Performance Targets:
1 http://www.epa.gov/radon
96
-------
In FY 2011, EPA's performance targets are: 1) that 12.5 percent of single-family homes, above
EPA's action level, will have operating radon mitigation systems and 2) that 34.5 percent of
single family homes are built with mitigation ready systems in high radon potential areas. EPA
estimates that by meeting these targets, the program will prevent over 900 future premature
cancer deaths annually.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in Radon Programs
under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$8.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; IRAA, Section 306; Title IV of the SARA of 1986; TSCA, section
6, Titles II and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and Section 10.
97
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Program Area: Indoor Air
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,335.2
$706.5
$25,041.7
65.7
FY2010
Enacted
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$22,156.0
$768.0
$22,924.0
69.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,397.0
$6.0
$1,403.0
6.0
Program Project Description:
The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) maintains the capacity to
conduct field measurements, assessments, and technical support for indoor air quality
remediation. R&IE also conducts training and provides technical support for development of
Tribal capacity for indoor air quality programs, such as environmental asthma triggers in homes
and schools, mold remediation, assessment and characterization of sources of volatiles and
intruding vapors, and monitoring and measurement techniques.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to support Tribal capacity building by conducting in-person and
online training courses on asthma and indoor air quality intervention and remediation
approaches. EPA also will support Tribal communities with field measurements and
assessments upon request and provide technical support for indoor air quality remediation.
EPA's indoor air quality technical assistance and training work is primarily focused toward
Tribal communities and it meets an identified need at a relatively low cost.
Performance Targets:
EPA will continue to work under its long term strategic goal for 2014 that 7.2 million people
with asthma will be taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental
triggers. EPA's goal is to motivate an additional 400,000 people with asthma to take these
actions in 2011, bringing the total number to approximately 6.1 million people with asthma who
are taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers. EPA will
work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted populations and the
overall population.
EPA also will continue to work toward its long-term 2012 goal that 40,000 primary and
secondary schools (35 percent of schools) will be implementing effective indoor air quality
management programs consistent with EPA guidance.
98
-------
The Indoor Air program will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements in response
to recommendations from OMB. EPA will track progress against the efficiency measures
triennially with the next report date for asthma planned in 2012 and schools for 2013.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in Indoor Air Programs
under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$6.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$1.0) This increase in contract funding will support indoor air work at the Las Vegas
laboratory.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
99
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
100
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$90,809.5
$3,852.1
$164.3
$36.3
$17,266.1
$112,128.3
484.6
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$98,060.0
$4,111.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$118,891.0
489.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$650.0
($274.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($367.0)
($177.0)
-13.8
Program Project Description:
The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) program supports the development,
collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and
ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at
the national, program, and Regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable
information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access. IT/DM manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. IT/DM
supports Regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental
programs, and telecommunications.
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive
purposes activities can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information
access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/Information Management (IT/IM)
policy and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and
maintenance (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. IT/IM and
IOME activities are provided to the programs funded under Science and Technology (S&T).
Resources under this program also fund the Agency-wide Quality Program. The Quality
Program is a key management system that ensures the quality of all services provided by EPA,
including, for example, all of the science and technology underpinning all of EPA's
environmental work, all of EPA's data, and all of EPA's documents for public distribution.
101
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
For FY 2011, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the S&T funded
programs:
• Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME) - FY 2011 activities in this area
implement and maintain the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over 200 top-level
pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on the EPA Web
site. In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web hosting for all of the
Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery mechanism for
environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the public, and is
becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2011, IOME activities
will be funded at $0.41 million, under the S&T appropriation.)
• Policy and Planning - FY 2011 activities will ensure that all due steps are taken to
reduce redundancy among information systems and data bases, streamline and
systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities, and monitor the progress
and performance of all IT/IM activities and systems. EPA's Quality Program has
consistently played a major role in each of these areas. In FY 2011, the Quality Program
will initiate a number of revisions to comply with the new Quality Policy (CIO Policy
2106, issued October 1, 2009). (In FY 2011, Quality Program activities will be funded at
$3.70 million under the S&T appropriation.)
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$252.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$498.0) This reduction reflects a one-time investment to improve EPA's IT capabilities
in order to support the Agency's expanding use of video conferencing under the green
travel and conferencing initiative.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD and DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
102
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
103
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
Science & Technology (S&T) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program
are used to fund rent, utilities, security, and also to manage activities and support services in
many centralized administrative areas such as health and safety, environmental compliance,
occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety, and environmental
management functions, facilities maintenance and operations, energy conservation, greenhouse
gas reduction, sustainable buildings programs, and space planning.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that
monthly billing statements are correct. The Agency also reviews space needs on a regular basis,
and is implementing a long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of
occupied facilities, consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square
footage where practical. (For FY 2011, the Agency is requesting a total in the S&T
appropriation of $30.95 million for rent; $19.89 million for utilities; $10.35 million for security;
$0.94 million for transit subsidy; and $0.25 million for Regional moves.)
These resources also help to improve building and transportation operating efficiency and
encourage the use of new, advanced technologies and energy sources. EPA will continue to
direct resources towards acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger
cars and light trucks. EPA also will continue with energy audits, commissioning, renewable
104
-------
energy, water conservation, and green buildings. Work in these areas is required under
Executive Order 134235, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management, and EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance, which expands upon Executive Order 13423 and requires additional reductions to
green house gas emissions.
Lastly, EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
131506 Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue the implementation of the Safely
and Health Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the
Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,997.0) This reduction reflects S&T's rent reduction as a result of the space
consolidation effort, as well as a rebalancing of cost methodologies between the EPM,
S&T, and SF appropriations.
• (+$716.0) This change reflects an increase in utility costs.
• (+$89.0) This change reflects an increase in security costs.
• (+$5.0) This change reflects an increase in transit subsidy.
• (-$236.0) This reduction eliminates EPA's funding for the Lab 21 conference, which will
now be fully funded from private sector resources.
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive
Orders 10577 and 12598; United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal
Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection); Energy
Policy Act of 2005; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
5 Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo 134237
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
105
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
106
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$60,952.3
$3,159.3
$64,111.6
481.2
FY2010
Enacted
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$64,666.0
$3,806.0
$68,472.0
467.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,722.0
$56.0
$1,778.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment."
EPA's Pesticides program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that
pesticides already in commerce are safe. As directed by FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Act of 1996 that amended FIFRA and FFDCA,
EPA is responsible for registering and re-evaluating pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide
users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. To
make regulatory decisions and establish tolerances for the maximum allowable pesticide residues
on food and feed, EPA must balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider
cumulative and aggregate risks, and ensure extra protection for children.
Laboratory activity for the Pesticide program supports the goal of protecting human health
through efforts at three laboratories: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology
laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental
chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories develop
and validate environmental chemistry, analytical chemistry, and genetically modified organism
plant incorporated protectant (PIP) methods to ensure the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA offices, and states have
reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The
pesticide laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop
multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different
chemicals using one test.
For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppbeadl/labs/index.htm
107
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2011, the Agency will protect human health by evaluating analytical methods for detecting
pesticide residues in food and feed, ensuring suitability for monitoring pesticide residues, and
enforcing tolerances. This will be accomplished by developing and validating multi-residue
pesticide analytical methods for food, feed, and water for use by other Federal and state
laboratories, and subsequently the program office. Laboratories further support the estimation of
human health risks from pesticide use by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository
and by conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials.
EPA's laboratories provide quality assurance and technical support and training to EPA Regional
Offices, state laboratories, and other Federal agencies that implement FIFRA. The laboratories
will evaluate registered products that are most crucial to infection control (sterilants,
tuberculocides, and hospital-level disinfectants). Under the PIP method validation program,
work will continue evaluating several novel molecular-based methods.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this program's
performance measures are program outputs which represent statutory requirements to ensure that
pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and when
used in accordance with the packaging label, present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While
program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for
realizing benefits in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace. There are no specific performance measures for this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$60.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4.0) This reflects an adjustment in management support contracts.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Federal Insecticide; Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Federal Food; Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
108
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$42,531.0
$2,121.9
$44,652.9
333.2
FY2010
Enacted
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$43,031.0
$2,312.0
$45,343.0
301.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$828.0
$33.0
$861.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment."
Along with assessing the risks that pesticides pose to human health, EPA conducts ecological
risk assessments to determine potential effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems. EPA works
to protect ecosystems, particularly the plants and animals that are not targets of the pesticide, and
satisfies additional responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).7 As directed by
FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide is not likely to harm the environment, and may
impose risk mitigation measures such as restricting uses, denying uses, or requiring monitoring
of environmental conditions, such as effects on water sources.8 In making its regulatory
decisions, the Agency considers both the risks and the benefits derived from the use of the
pesticide.
Laboratory activities for the pesticides program support the goal of protecting the environment
from pesticide use through three pesticides laboratories: an analytical chemistry laboratory, a
microbiology laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an
environmental chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These
laboratories develop and validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods and
genetically modified organism plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) methods to ensure the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA
offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and
in the environment. The pesticide laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other EPA
7 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)l and? (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 Internet site:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleOA.html.
8 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
109
-------
laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for
several different chemicals using one test.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2011, the Agency will support the protection of the environment by developing methods and
conducting analyses to make better informed decisions regarding pesticide exposures and risk to
the environment and by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository (NPSR) to support
Federal and state laboratories involved in enforcement activities. Under the PIP method
validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based methods.
The laboratories will also support the protection of the environment by:
1) Evaluating residue analytical methods used for detecting pesticide residues in
environmental matrices, such as water, soil and sediment. Evaluating residue analytical
methods will give the program confidence in assessing the results generated by the
registrant and submitted to the Agency, which is required by the pesticide registration
guidelines of FIFRA. Evaluating residue analytical methods also will assist the Agency
in developing and validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for
environmental matrices for use by other Federal and state laboratories to estimate
environmental risks.
2) Responding to urgent pesticide program needs for analytical chemistry support to address
specific short-term, rapid turnaround issues of high priority. The labs cooperate with the
regions on activities related to analysis of environmental samples for select pesticides or
other environmental contaminants related to pesticide production or disposition.
Additionally, the labs develop exposure data for dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and
other persistent contaminants of environmental concern, to support Agency
environmental risk assessments.
3) Conducting product performance evaluations of antimicrobials to remove ineffective
products from the market. The labs also provide data to support use of effective tools for
remediation efforts and testing capacity for environmental monitoring of microbial
populations (due to overt or unintentional contamination). Another activity involves
conducting validation services on methods used to detect DNA and/or proteins for PIPs
in major agricultural commodities such as corn, soybeans, potatoes, and cotton.
EPA's laboratories provide technical support and quality assurance support to regional, state and
other Federal laboratories in numerous ways. The laboratories are responsible for the posting
and upkeep of residue analytical methods and environmental chemistry methods for food, feed,
soil, and water on the EPA Web site. These methods are frequently the only resource available
to Regional Offices, state laboratories and other Federal agencies for current methodology
information for the newest pesticides. The microbiology laboratory also posts and maintains the
methods used to determine the efficacy of microbiological products on the web where there are
approximately 400 methods currently available (see http://www.epa.gov/oppbeadl/methods/).
110
-------
Additionally, the Agency responds to approximately 90 requests per year for method
information. These requests primarily come from state FIFRA laboratories.
The laboratories are involved in the development of multi-residue analytical methods (MRMs),
which are methods capable of measuring several similar pesticides simultaneously. These
MRMs are made available to state and Federal laboratories involved in residue monitoring and
enforcement activities.
The pesticides program operates the EPA NPSR which provides pesticide reference materials to
Federal and state laboratories for enforcement activities. The NPSR shipped approximately
6,000 analytical reference standards to enforcement laboratories in FY 2007 and approximately
6,500 in FY 2008. In FY 2009, the NPSR expected to provide approximately 7,000 standards.
As a special project comes to an end in FY 2010, the annual rate will return to approximately
6,500 and will remain at this level in FY 2011.
The laboratories also participate in the American Association of Pest Control Officials and the
State FIFRA Issues and Research Evaluation Group pesticide laboratory technical meetings with
state and industry chemists, responding to issues raised by enforcement laboratories.
Additionally, the laboratories are represented on and work through the Association of Analytical
Chemists to develop and implement consensus methods for microbiology and chemistry.
In the area of quality assurance, the Agency's laboratories assist state and Federal partners in
several ways. Examples include providing review of quality management plans for homeland
security laboratory projects conducted under interagency agreements with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD); providing technical assistance and
oversight on quality assurance and technical questions from FDA and DoD laboratories for a
variety of projects; providing quality assurance oversight to the FDA/White Oak facility for the
Three Step Method (TSM) collaborative validation study (the FDA did not have a quality
assurance unit in place at the time of the study); and conducting a readiness review at ten
collaborating laboratories working on the validation of the TSM. The TSM quantitatively
measures the efficacy of antimicrobials for inactivating anthrax spores.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance measures. Some of the pesticide
program's performance measures are program outputs which represent statutory requirements to
ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment,
and when used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm.
There are no specific performance measures under this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$33.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Ill
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,772.7
$442.8
$13,215.5
89.4
FY2010
Enacted
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,156.0
$546. 0
$14,702.0
93.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,011.0
$9.0
$1,020.0
3.5
Program Project Description:
Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of
"unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" expands the concept of protecting against
unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding "taking into account the economic,
social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.. ."9
EPA must ensure that such emergency uses will not present an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment. EPA's timely review of emergency exemptions has avoided an
estimated $1.5 billion in crop losses per year,10 resulting from incidents of new pests on crops
when exemptions are necessary while progress is made towards full registration. In such cases,
EPA's goal is to complete the more detailed and comprehensive risk review for pesticide
registration within three years.
FIFRA clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human health
and the environment from the pesticide registration process that it establishes. Section 3 of
FIFRA also authorizes EPA to register products that are identical or substantially similar to
already-registered products. The entry of these new Products, also known as "generics," into the
market can cause price reductions resulting from new competition and broader access to
products. These price declines generate competition that provides benefits to farmers and
consumers. Another example of savings is the estimated $1.8 billion in termite damage which is
avoided each year through the availability of effective termiticides.11 While some effective
termiticides have been removed from the market due to safety concerns, EPA continues to work
with industry to register safe alternatives that meet or exceed all current safety standards and
offer a high level of protection.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
10 Baseline data on crop market prices, crop production, and total acres grown are from United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) databases, while the percentage of potential yield loss without pesticides is estimated by Biological and Economic
Analysis Division (BEAD) scientists based on published and unpublished studies. The number of acres treated with the pesticides
are based on data submitted by State Departments of Agriculture.
11 U.S. Census Bureau data (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/house.html); University of Georgia Entomology Dept.
(http://www.ent.uga.edu/pubs.htm'l National Pest Management Association
(www.pestworld.org/Database/Article. asp? ArticleiD=34&UserType).
112
-------
Three pesticide laboratories provide data that are used by EPA to make informed regulatory
decisions that recognize societal benefits: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology
laboratory at the Environmental Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental
chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS. These laboratories also
validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure that the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA offices, and
states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the
environment. Additionally, the laboratories ensure that pesticides deliver intended results. The
laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop multi-
residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals
using one test.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will realize the benefits of pesticides by operating the National Pesticide
Standard Repository (NPSR) and conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials.
EPA's laboratories will continue to provide quality assurance and technical support and training
to EPA regions, state laboratories, and other Federal agencies that implement FIFRA. The
laboratories will evaluate registered products that are most crucial to infection control (sterilants,
tuberculocides, and hospital-level disinfectants). Under the Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIP)
method validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based
methods.
The pesticide laboratories support the program by evaluating analytical methods for detecting
pesticide residues in food and feed ensuring suitability for monitoring pesticide residues and
enforcement of tolerances. The NPSR also distributes analytical standards to Federal and state
laboratories involved in enforcement activities. The laboratories develop and validate multi-
residue pesticide analytical methods for food, feed and water for use by other Federal (USDA
Pesticide Data Program and FDA) and state laboratories. These laboratories generate residue
data that are then used by the program office to estimate human health risks. The laboratories
are prepared to respond to urgent program needs for analytical chemistry support and special
studies to address specific short-term, rapid turnaround priority issues.
In addition to residue methods, the labs provide method validation services for genetically
modified organism products. They also develop data to support FIFRA section 18 uses for new
chemicals where efficacy data are non-existent (particularly biothreat agents, including B.
anthracis, or emerging hospital pathogens) and evaluate the product performance of
antimicrobials used to control infectious pathogens in hospital environments. The laboratories
develop new test methods for novel uses or emerging pathogens, including biothreat agents, in
order to provide guidelines for efficacy data for public health claims, guidance for registration,
and to provide technical support and training on testing methods and procedures.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this program's
performance measures are program outputs which represent statutory requirements to ensure that
113
-------
pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and, when
used in accordance with the packaging label, present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While
program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for
realizing benefits in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace. There are no specific performance measures under this Program
Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$9.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQA); Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
114
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Air
115
-------
Research: Global Change
Program Area: Research: Clean Air
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$17,264.1
$17,264.1
36.9
FY2010
Enacted
$20,826.0
$20,826.0
35.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$21,985.0
$21,985.0
40.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,159.0
$1,159.0
4.6
Program Project Description:
EPA's Global Change research program is focused on understanding and assessing the effects of
global change—particularly climate variability and change—on air quality, water quality, aquatic
ecosystems, human health and social well being in the United States and supports the
Administrator's priorities for taking action on climate change, improving air quality and
protecting America's waters. The Agency strives to produce timely and useful information,
decision support tools and adaptation strategies that will enable resource managers,
policymakers, and other stakeholders to account for global change when making decisions. EPA
also is developing decision support tools to help decision makers evaluate alternative strategies
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to better quantify the environmental implications (and
potential co-benefits) associated with deployment of these strategies. The range of research
programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis
of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable
solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
The program partners with program and Regional Offices to understand how climate change
affects the Agency's ability to fulfill its statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements,
and identifies opportunities within the provisions of the statutes (e.g., the Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act) to address the anticipated impacts of a changing
climate. Interactions between climate and air quality and climate and water quality are likely to
play larger roles in ambient air and water health assessments in the future. To meet this
challenge, the Clean Air Research program, the Drinking Water Research program, and the
Water Quality Research program, are all working closely with the Global program to develop
frameworks for the research that will be most useful to stakeholders charged with protecting
public and environmental health.
The program is an active participant in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),
the interagency Federal effort to improve scientific understanding of climate change and global
change.12 EPA's program priorities are consistent with those of the USGCRP, which coordinates
and integrates climate change and global change research among thirteen Federal departments
12 For more information, see http://www.globalchange.gov/.
116
-------
and agencies, and USGCRP's Strategic Plan13. The program also is guided by a multi-year
research plan developed by EPA, which is currently under revision.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee composed of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted a peer
review of the program in 2005, and reported that the program "has provided substantial benefits
to the nation and that it is on course to make significant further contributions."14 The
subcommittee completed a mid-cycle review of the program in 2008 and reaffirmed its
assessment of the program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA research will continue to focus on four areas:
• Understanding how climate change will affect air quality in the United States;
• Understanding how climate change will affect water quality and aquatic ecosystems;
• Evaluating alternative strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the
environmental implications of those strategies; and
• Supporting the statutory mandates of the USGCRP to produce periodic assessments of
the effects of climate change.
Research and assessments, in all four areas, will continue to improve understanding of the
implications of climate change for human health. They also will address the impacts of
alternative adaptation and mitigation strategies.
The Global Change research program will continue to provide support to decision makers with
areas of responsibility likely to be affected by climate change, such as air quality district
managers, state environmental agencies, watershed managers, and operators of waste and
drinking water systems. FY 2011 funding will continue research to develop, in collaboration
with EPA's Water program, detailed watershed-based, stakeholder-driven studies focused on
local issues and specific management solutions for addressing global change, and assess, in
collaboration with EPA's Air and Radiation program, the linkages between global climate
change, regional air quality and health effects. This research will be the basis for key
comprehensive assessments of how climate change will affect U.S. air and water quality and
particular areas of vulnerability. These assessments will help EPA's Air and Water programs
understand how climate change will affect their ability to meet statutory, regulatory, and
programmatic requirements and account for climate change's effects in their future actions.
13 National Science and Technology Council, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Washington: NSTC, 2003). Available at:
http://climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/
14 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Review of the Office of Research and Development's Global Change Research Program
atthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2006), 6. See http://www.epa.gov/osp/bQsc/pdf/globQ603rpt.pdf.
117
-------
The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies recently highlighted the
importance of the EPA's decision support activities in its 2009 report, Informing Decisions in a
Changing Climate15 and recommended that EPA "expand its climate-related decision support
programs to serve more regional and sectoral constituencies." As recommended by the NRC, the
program began to place greater emphasis on its decision support efforts in FY 2009. These
efforts include inventorying and assessing the climate-sensitive decisions made by local and state
decision makers to identify which decisions are most impacted by climate change and which
decisions can benefit most from EPA's scientific findings. In FY 2009, EPA supported the
stakeholder-oriented process by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to
develop a Climate Change Strategy. EPA will continue to assist the State of Alaska as it
implements its adaptation strategy and expects that this will serve as a model for future state
strategies. This research responds to the BOSC recommendation that the program develop a new
strategy for place-based adaptation decision support activities that recognizes the importance of
engaging local stakeholders while ensuring that the results of the investment have extended
applicability of national significance.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to develop computer models that simulate how global
change may affect U.S. air quality,16 continuing progress toward the program goal to complete a
framework linking global change to air quality. The program also will model and evaluate
potential adaptive responses to climate change, such as changes in energy, pollution control, and
transportation technologies, and behavior in various regions and sectors of the U.S." Program
efforts will help air quality resource managers make informed decisions about how to respond to
the effects of global change on air quality. They are also a critical component of the Assessment
of the Implications of Global Change for Air Quality in the U.S, planned for release in 2012.
In FY 2009, the program began a comprehensive assessment of the effects of climate change on
water quality, including aquatic ecosystems. In FY 2011, EPA will continue research on the
effects of global change, including changes in land use and climate change, on water systems.
This information will assist in determining climate change impacts on water resources in
different regions and in the development of decision support tools needed to protect water quality
and aquatic ecosystems.
In FY 2011, the program also will continue to perform research, in collaboration with other
programs, to provide information that will inform efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases and other
radiative forcing compounds. The program will provide technical information on the
environmental and human health implications of alternative technologies to EPA program offices
responsible for developing and implementing regulations and legislation to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The research also will identify potential mitigation options that could
reduce both traditional air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter) and greenhouse gases.
Research on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide and the impacts of different capture
technologies, in partnership with EPA's Drinking Water research program and the Department of
Energy, will support the Water program's carbon sequestration rulemaking.
15 For more information, see http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12626
16 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/global/.
17 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/greengas.htm.
118
-------
The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates periodic scientific assessments of the
effects of global change.18 Section 106 of the act states that these assessments should integrate
and interpret the findings of the Federal government's climate change research; analyze the
effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land
and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and
biological diversity; analyze current trends in global change; and project major trends for the
next 25 to 100 years. EPA, beginning in FY 2006, has participated in the development of
CCSP's Synthesis and Assessments Products (SAPs), serving as lead agency for three of the 21
assessments.19 Two EPA SAPs, Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and
Resources (SAP 4.4) and Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and
Welfare and Human Systems (SAP 4.6), were released in calendar year 2008. The third SAP
(SAP 4.1), Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region, was
released in January 2009. EPA will continue to participate in USGCRP's programmatic,
assessment, and planning activities.
The global change research program makes extensive use of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program's competitive, peer-reviewed grants. In FY 2011, STAR'S global change
component will focus on two research areas. First, new grants will fund development of effective
strategies to both mitigate climate change and reduce air pollution while accounting for future
changes in climate, land use, and technology. One component of these grants will jointly
consider the climate and air quality impacts of strategies to reduce black carbon. Second, STAR
funding will enable investigation of the sensitivity of U.S. water systems to global change.
Research in this area will improve our understanding of opportunities and the effectiveness of
adaptive responses to reduce the risk of impaired water quality and ecosystem services at the
watershed scale. Research also will address the potential adaptive benefits of low impact
neighborhood design, green infrastructure, soil and water conservation practices, and other
potential responses to reduce the risk of future aquatic ecosystem and water quality impacts.
To improve the Research: Global Change program, EPA has taken steps to finalize independent,
review-informed performance measures; clarify the program's framework and mission; develop
a means to measure the program's efficiency; and improve budget-performance integration. The
program is finalizing long-term performance targets and will collect formal long term
measurement data during its comprehensive BOSC review scheduled for early 2010.
Additionally, the program is revising and broadening its multi-year plan around a clearer
framework, and has developed an approach for improving program efficiency.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
18 See 15 USC §2936.
19 For more information, see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-summary.php.
119
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Global
publications rated as
highly cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
23
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
7010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
24
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Global
publications in high
impact journals.
FY 2009
Target
24.6
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
25.6
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Objective 4.4. Specifically, the
program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on global change.
The program gauges its annual and long term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. Improvements in these measures demonstrate increased
quality and utility of the program's research. In addition, the program plans to meet 100 percent
of its planned outputs, and complete additional work toward a framework linking global change
to air quality. By meeting these targets, the research program will improve the Agency's ability
to make guidance and policy decisions related to global change.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$427.0 \ +3.0 FTE) This represents a realignment of resources from the Air program to
the Global Change program for research on air quality-climate interactions and feedback
to effectively couple regional air quality and global climate models and includes 3.0 FTE
with associated payroll of $431.0.
• (+$232.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability Program/Project to support Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR). For that program, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for
contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
technologies. After the FY 2011 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the
mandated requirement is known, FY 2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (+$233.0 \ +1.6 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes 1.6 FTE with associated payroll
of $230.0. These realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific
equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This increase is the
net result of realignments of support FTE to better align with programmatic priorities.
120
-------
• (-$26.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
USGCRA; NCPA; ERDDA.
121
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
122
-------
Research: Drinking Water
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$43,762.7
$43,762.7
188.3
FY2010
Enacted
$49,155.0
$49,155.0
190.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$52,258.0
$52,258.0
190.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,103.0
$3,103.0
0.6
Program Project Description:
EPA's Drinking Water Research program (DWRP) conducts comprehensive integrated research
in support of EPA's Office of Water and Regional Offices. The program is organized around
two long term goals that focus on characterization and management of health risks across the
water continuum with an emphasis on sound scientific approaches for ensuring safe and
sustainable drinking water.
The program provides methodologies, data, tools, models, and technologies in support of
regulatory decisions, health risk assessments and other needs pertaining to the Safe Drinking
Water Act's (SDWA) statutory requirements. Research also is targeted at implementation of
regulatory decisions, addressing simultaneous compliance issues, promoting the sustainability of
water resources, and the reliable delivery of safe drinking water, as well as developing
approaches to improve water infrastructure. The range of research programs and initiatives will
both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and
human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through
approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
Research in the Drinking Water Research program is coordinated with the Agency's regulatory
activities and timelines and is responsive to EPA's Water program and Regional Offices. A
major component of the research program is addressing the information gaps associated with
chemicals and microorganisms that are on the recently released third Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL3) and supporting the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR3). Current policy-
relevant research topics include the following:
• Research to address revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (R-TCR) and related research
on distribution systems;
• Implementation of recent regulatory decisions including the Ground Water Rule, the
Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBP2), and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR); and
• Research support for simultaneous compliance challenges, particularly co-compliance
with the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), Microbial and Disinfectant Byproduct (M/DBP)
rules, and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR).
123
-------
Research also is targeted at protecting underground sources of drinking water. A key focus is
supporting the Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations that pertain to geologic
sequestration of carbon. In addition, research is being initiated on water resources implications
associated with the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction. Several peer-reviewed
research strategies20'21 and guidance from external experts22'23'24'25 have provided input and
guidance for charting the research directions within the DWRP. The Agency's Research and
Development program uses Multi-Year Plans26 (MYPs) to outline how each program will
develop and implement research while meeting Annual Performance Goals (APGs) and Annual
Performance Measures (APMs) for evaluating progress. National Programs and associated
MYPs are subjected to rigorous, external peer review27. The Drinking Water MYP was revised,
in partnership with the Water program and with input from the Regional Offices, to reflect the
new structure of the program and to plan and communicate ongoing and anticipated science
activities and regulatory needs for FYs 2009 through 2014.
EPA and its external reviewers, including the EPA Science Advisory Board and the Board of
Scientific Counselors, have recognized that a statute-specific research approach is limited in its
potential for solving modern environmental problems. While the Drinking Water and Water
Quality research program have both made many important contributions to EPA decision
making and have worked to integrate various disciplines throughout the programs, they could
benefit by building upon important synergies and emerging tools to address these evolving
environmental problems. Moving in that direction, portions of the Drinking Water program are
being aligned with related aspects of the Water Quality research program. The result will be a
more holistic research program that maximizes responsiveness to the rapidly changing needs of
EPA's Office of Water and other critical partners, while simultaneously addressing the
Administrator's priorities for protecting America's waters.
Efforts will include increased integration of water efficiency concepts and energy-water
interdependences across the program from source water protection to treatment and distribution
systems. In addition, more explicit efforts are being made to identify opportunities to improve
water supplies in urban communities and small systems in collaboration with the Agency's
efforts on Environmental Justice and community-based programs. Potential examples include
working with the Office of Water to identify sites for field-based research including monitoring
studies, infrastructure evaluation, and epidemiology projects. In addition, the program is
continuing its emphasis on developing cost-effective systems that are appropriate for small
communities.
20U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in
Drinking Water. EPA 600-R-97-122, Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997).
21 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. EPA 600-R-98-042,
Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1998).
22 National Research Council. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press (2001).
23National Academies of Science. From Source Water to Drinking Water: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press (2004).
24 National Research Council. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2004).
National Research Council. Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks—First Report.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2005).
26 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp.htm.
27 Science Advisory Board. Review of EPA's 2003 Draft Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan (2005). Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab-05-008.pdf
124
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Drinking Water Research program will continue its evolution towards
conducting more integrated multidisciplinary research focused on characterizing and managing
health risks associated with surface and underground sources of drinking water, treatment
strategies, and distribution/storage systems and water infrastructure. The program has made a
progressive shift from addressing individual contaminants on a case-by-case basis toward
developing approaches for screening, prioritizing and evaluating health risks associated with
exposure to environmentally relevant chemical and microbiological contaminants and mixtures.
A key emphasis will be on conducting integrated research that links water availability and
quality issues with regulatory drivers including the role of water reuse, green infrastructure,
alternative design approaches, and the impact of centralized/decentralized treatment and
distribution on drinking water quality.
The program is organized around five theme areas: exposure/health effects, assessment tools,
source water/water resources, treatment strategies, and distribution/storage/infrastructure. This
structure provides opportunities for integrating health risk research with questions relevant to
water availability, water efficiency and energy considerations, and expanding the risk
characterization-risk management paradigm. Anticipated products for FY 2011 are listed below
by thematic area.
Exposure/Health Effects: A major research focus is clarifying potential health effects of CCL
contaminants. New efforts are being initiated to characterize potential exposure and health
significance of disinfection byproducts (DBFs) with an emphasis on the use of alternatives to
chlorine disinfection. Epidemiological studies of drinking water contaminant risks also are being
initiated. Work in FY 2011 will focus on:
• Developing and applying new research tools to characterize, screen, and prioritize
potential health effects of chemical contaminants and contaminant mixtures (including
emerging contaminants), and provide support in assessing those effects; and
• Developing approaches to evaluate the relative potency and toxicity of water disinfected
by different processes (with a focus on alternative treatments, such as chloramination and
ozonation), and characterize the health effects impact of treatment interactions with
varied source water characteristics.
Assessment Tools: Research is focused on developing reliable characterization tools to enable
screening, sample analysis, and modeling of waterborne chemicals, indicators and pathogens.
Research products in this area will enable quantification of CCL chemicals and pathogens in
support of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule and other water monitoring
applications. Biomarkers of exposure and measurement methods (recovery, viability, speciation)
will be further developed. FY 2011 efforts will support the following:
• Demonstrate applications of proteomics for characterizing waterborne pathogens.
• Develop new and/or improved analytical method(s) to measure emerging and/or CCL
related chemicals to collect occurrence data under the UCMR.
125
-------
• Produce analytical techniques to quantify toxic arsenicals in cells and tissue samples to
support mode of action research.
• Produce innovative methods for the concentration, recovery, and assessment of protozoa,
viruses, and bacteria from large volumes of water.
• Characterize naturally-occurring amoeba-resistant bacteria from water samples.
Source Water /Water Resources: A special emphasis for FY 2011 is to address high priority
research questions related to the safety of drinking water and the safety, reliability, and
sustainability of drinking water infrastructure. In addition, the program will expand its work on
underground sources of drinking water to incorporate research on potential water supply
consequences (quality and availability) associated with hydraulic fracturing activities and the
effectiveness of existing and alternative mitigation strategies.
Research in this area will characterize health risks associated with drinking water sources,
develop tools that allow for identification of impacted and susceptible water sources, and
establish links between water availability and changes in water quality. Protection of surface
water and ground water sources of drinking water requires reliable monitoring methods coupled
with implementation of best management practices (BMPs). There will be a shift in FY 2011
towards an increased emphasis on protecting ground water sources with a focus on underground
injection control (UIC), aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), and ground water recharge.
Research will continue toward answering key questions associated with minimizing risks of
geologic sequestration of carbon on underground sources of drinking water (USDW). For FY
2011, efforts will focus on the following:
• Developing models to assess risk associated with underground injection of carbon
dioxide, field monitoring techniques to assess leakage of injected carbon dioxide into
sources of drinking water, and tools to support implementation aspects of the proposed
UIC rule on geological sequestration; and
• Assessing the ability of various drinking water treatment technologies to remove selected
potential endocrine disrupting chemicals that may be in source water.
In FY 2011, research on underground sources or drinking water will be expanded to address
potential water supply consequences associated with hydraulic fracturing, a potentially important
aspect of energy resource exploration and management. Congress has urged EPA to conduct this
research, which supports the Agency's priority to restore and protect the quality of the nation's
waters by ensuring the protection of our aquifers. Research will focus on developing a systems
approach for assessing direct and indirect consequences of hydraulic fracturing activities on
sources of drinking water, with an emphasis on modeling, monitoring, and mitigation strategies.
The research program will include funding for STAR grants to leverage the expertise of top
scientists in academia. In addition, it will integrate regionally based field activities to provide a
national perspective on potential opportunities for improved safeguards. The program also will
study options to optimize water and energy efficiency throughout the lifecycle of hydraulic
fracturing activities.
Treatment Strategies: The emphasis of the research will be on evaluating existing treatment
strategies for control of CCL and other emerging contaminants, development of point-of-
126
-------
use/point-of-entry systems for small systems, implementation issues for regulated contaminants,
and preventing simultaneous compliance issues. Major focus areas include disinfection efficacy,
control of emerging contaminants, corrosion control, and optimizing energy and water efficiency
in producing and delivering potable water.
Distribution/Storage/Infrastructure: Integrated research efforts will be directed at water
supply distribution systems and infrastructure. The Drinking Water Research program will
support the Agency's involvement in the "Distribution System Research and Information
Collection Partnership" with a focus on infrastructure, biofilms, nitrification, and contaminant
accumulation. This work is in support of the revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the
next round of six year review. Research will continue in support of the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR):
• Studies will be conducted to better understand the growth and colonization of viral,
bacterial and protozoan pathogen in distribution systems; the role of free-living amoebae
in fate, transport and infectivity; and nitrification reactions that occur in distribution
systems, accumulation, mobilization and disinfection of contaminants from distribution
systems including lead, arsenic, and vanadium.
• Research started in FY 2007 under the "Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century"
Initiative, will continue in FY 2011 and will include focusing on field investigations and
modeling of how distribution system characteristics (age, materials, capacity) and
management/operation practices (flushing, pressure, hydrodynamics, storage, mixing of
water sources, corrosion control) impact system integrity and performance including
biofilms, water chemistry, corrosion, and drinking water quality.
• The Agency will explore integrated approaches for managing and assessing risks in the
distribution system and the development of innovative, real-time condition assessment,
technology, and repair or rehabilitation techniques through increased use of full-scale
demonstrations.
• Research will continue on the effects of corrosion and accumulation of contaminants in
the distribution system.
The program also will continue research in support of the Ground Water Rule and the Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. Modeling and field studies will continue to address UIC research
needs associated with geologic sequestration of carbon.
By conducting research in support of SDWA, this research program will assist the Agency in
pursuing its strategic objective of providing, by 2011, drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards to 91 percent of the population served by community
water systems.
Additionally, in FY 2011 portions of the Drinking Water research program will be aligned with
portions of the Water Quality research program to focus on high priority problems affecting
water quality and availability. This base shift will improve understanding of critical water
resource questions with cross-cutting implications for drinking water and water quality.
127
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
risk management
research products
delivered to support
EPA's Office of Water,
Regions, water
utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage
public health risk.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
93
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
methodologies, data,
and tools delivered in
support of EPA's
Office of Water and
other key stakeholders
needs for developing
health risk assessments
under the SDWA.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 2.3 - Enhance
Science and Research. Specifically, the program conducts leading-edge, sound scientific research
to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in drinking water.
The program gauges its annual and long term success by assessing its progress on several key
measures. In 2011, the program will strive to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs in
support of long term goals. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal
of protecting human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking
water.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,471.0 \ +3.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for research on hydraulic fracturing and
its impact on drinking water and includes an FTE increase of 3.0 with associated payroll
of $381.0. Research will provide policy relevant methods, models, monitoring tools, and
data on potential risks to water resources associated with extracting gas from subsurface
formations using vertical and horizontal fracturing technologies. The research program
includes funding for STAR grants to leverage the expertise of top scientists in academia.
Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agency's priority
to restore and protect the quality of the nation's waters by ensuring the protection of our
aquifers. The request brings the research on hydraulic fracturing program total to $4.4
million and 6.0 FTE.
128
-------
• (+$1,158.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$216.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known,
FY 2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (+$65.OK) This realignment of resources from the Land Protection and Remediation
program reflects the natural evolution in research direction from groundwater
remediation issues to groundwater protection issues related to carbon sequestration.
• (-$98.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$709.0 \ -2.4 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes a 2.4 FTE reduction with
decreased associated payroll of $304.0. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as
well as scientific equipment needs.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA; ERDDA; MPRSA.
129
-------
Research: Water Quality
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$64,926.0
$64,926.0
235.5
FY2010
Enacted
$61,918.0
$61,918.0
236.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$68,858.0
$68,858.0
244.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$6,940.0
$6,940.0
8.1
Program Project Description:
The Water Quality research program is designed to support the Clean Water Act (CWA),
providing scientific information and tools to the Agency and others to help protect and restore
the designated uses of water bodies that sustain human health and aquatic life. The program
conducts research on the development and application of water quality criteria; the
implementation of effective watershed management approaches; and the application of
technological options to restore and protect water bodies using information on effective
treatment and management alternatives.
The Water Quality research program is responsive to the needs of EPA's Water program and
Regional Offices, which are the program's primary clients in developing research priorities, and
also supports the Administrator's priority of protecting America's waters. The Agency
maintains a Water Quality research program Multi-Year Plan28 (MYP) that outlines steps and
provides a timeline for meeting these needs along with related annual performance goals and
measures for evaluating progress. The range of research programs and initiatives will both
continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human
health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such
as green chemistry and green engineering.
EPA and its external reviewers, including the EPA Science Advisory Board and National
Science Foundation, have recognized that a statute-specific research approach is limited in its
potential for solving modern environmental problems. While the Water Quality research
program and Drinking Water research program have both made many important contributions to
EPA decision making and have worked to integrate various disciplines throughout the programs,
they could benefit by building upon important synergies and emerging tools to address these
evolving environmental problems. Moving in that direction, portions of the Water Quality
research program are being aligned with related aspects of the Drinking Water research program.
The result will be a more holistic research program that maximizes responsiveness to the rapidly
changing needs of EPA's Water program and other critical partners.
28 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Water Quality Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htm.
130
-------
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee composed of
independent expert scientists and engineers—conducted a review in June 2009 of WQRP and
determined that it is serving its clients well in conducting critical research to meet the regulatory
mandates of the Clean Water Act. BOSC noted that the WQRP is making an exceptional effort to
obtain client input, but more effort is needed to establish a mechanism for quantifying long term
outcomes of the program. The progress made by the WQRP in response to the previous BOSC
review was assigned an overall rating of "Meets Expectations" but the BOSC found that the program
was exceeding expectations in several areas with respect to quality of research.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Research efforts within the Water Quality research program are aligned with the Agency's
strategic objectives29 under the CWA to promulgate protective standards, identify contaminant
contributions to impaired waters, use tools to restore and protect the nation's waters with due
consideration to minimizing impacts from point and non-point sources of contamination, and
maintain and improve the nation's aging infrastructure.
Water quality research, addressing key uncertainties, is critical to the Agency's efforts to protect
America's water. Although the quality of the nation's waters has shown improvement, threats to
water quality remain, and new threats continue to be identified. In FY 2011 the Water Quality
research program will support priorities set in consultation with EPA's Water program and
Regional Offices, taking into account such factors as pollutant/stressor type, water body types,
and source of pollutants (e.g. agricultural versus urban). In particular, urban watershed
management is a top Agency priority. Therefore, the budget request includes a substantial
increase for green infrastructure research to facilitate the nation's transition to more sustainable
water infrastructure systems and watershed management practices. This and other Water Quality
research is categorized within three broad areas: Water Quality Integrity Research; Watershed
Management Research; and Source Control and Management Research.
Water Quality Integrity research priorities support regulatory-driven needs related to revising
aquatic life guidelines for toxics and emerging contaminants, for example, pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs), recreational water criteria (beaches research), nitrogen and
phosphorus criteria, and sediments. Research also will continue on developing approaches for
addressing multiple stressor effects on stream biota and on invasive species. In FY 2011,
research will continue to help provide the data and analysis to support revisions to recreational
water criteria as well as support implementation of revised criteria. EPA's water program is the
major client for research products under this program and will use them in the development and
application of water quality criteria. Projects to support criteria development will be completed
by December 2010, and consequently some beaches research resources will be redirected to
support hydraulic fracturing research within the Drinking Water research program.
Research on diagnostic methods to identify contaminant contributions to impaired waters will
enable EPA to continue its focus on the causes and sources of aquatic system impairment.
Specifically, this research will provide the scientific foundation and information management
29 U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan, Washington, D.C. EPA.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/
131
-------
scheme for an integrated process for assessing, listing, and reporting water quality conditions
that meet or fail to meet statutory requirements, including a classification framework for surface
waters, watersheds, and regions. As EPA directs and informs the efforts of the states to adopt
nutrient criteria for individual water bodies, research is required to identify nutrient responses
based on geographic region, water body type, and designated use. Research will continue toward
linking stressor-response relationships to a biological condition gradient and the Tiered Aquatic
Life Uses (TALU) framework, while providing information on technical guidance for the
development of nutrient water quality criteria for coastal wetlands and estuaries and the Great
Lakes.
The Water Quality program supports the adoption and implementation of watershed management
approaches by states and tribes as they require strong standards, monitoring, Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) determinations, and implementation programs, including best-management
practices, restoration, and TMDL watershed plans. Research in this area will develop tools and
processes to identify or measure the following:
o Impaired or vulnerable resources,
o Threats and causes of impairment for effective decision making,
o Ways to reduce impairment and vulnerability, and
o The effectiveness of implemented management measures.
In FY 2011, this research will help the Agency address the quality of our neglected urban rivers.
Many municipalities are faced with multi-million dollar costs associated with controlling wet
weather flow and particularly combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Green infrastructure options
have the potential to reduce costs of control compared to traditional "grey" (concrete and steel)
infrastructure, but are less proven. Therefore, research will be conducted on wet weather flow
problems in urban areas and innovation in green infrastructure, identifying ways to improve
efficiency as well as evaluate and measure effectiveness. A significant portion of funds will
support Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants to leverage the most innovative thinking by
academia's top scientists. In addition to evaluating the comparison of green and "grey"
infrastructure, research will focus on the combination of the green with the "grey" infrastructure
to achieve control of wet weather flow. Additional research will document and critically review
green urban watershed management case studies, incorporating green infrastructure in a manner
that will be widely useful to urban planners and water resource managers.
Watershed management research also will continue to support the TMDL allocation processes
with the development of information and integrated water quality and quantity modeling and
monitoring tools, including tools for targeting and prioritizing, monitoring, and restoration of
watersheds and their subsystems. This research supports assessing condition, including
providing technical support to the EPA National Aquatic Resources Assessments (NARS) which
is critical for determining impaired resources and the condition of the nation's water bodies in a
scientifically defensible manner. It includes the development of tools for assessing and
diagnosing of impairment, selecting mitigation options, and measuring and determining success.
It also includes support for CWA Section 305(b) reporting, use attainability analyses identifying
designated uses, and TMDL adaptive management. Research activities in this area also include
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia research which supports EPA's efforts on the Mississippi River Basin
132
-------
Watershed Nutrient Task Force to address goals of developing a risk-based forecasting capability
to aid water resource managers in making scientifically defensible nutrient management
decisions to reduce the hypoxia problem, restore the natural habitats, and restore food web
assemblages along the Gulf Coast.
Other research addresses identifying the locations and connectivity of headwater streams and
wetlands (complementary research on how and what role headwater streams and isolated
wetlands play in reducing pollutant loads, and their effect on downstream quality is being
conducted under the Agency's Ecological research program to enhance our understanding of the
benefits and value of ecological services). In addition, the program will continue to invest in
technical assistance for watershed modeling, decision support tools, and monitoring the
biological condition of the nation's aquatic resources. Key users of these products will be at the
regional, state, and local level.
Research will continue on the development of microbial source tracking (MST) indicators that
can be used to distinguish human from non-human pathogens as well as different sources of non-
human pathogens (e.g., cows versus geese). Research will be conducted to improve water
quality modeling to better predict pathogen and fecal indicator loadings, concentrations, and
associated health risks. The results of this research support the development and implementation
of revisions to the ambient water criteria for recreational settings. In particular, such work
supports improved TMDLs that will more accurately identify and allocate loadings from the
sources of pathogens that must be managed to meet water quality standards.
In addition, existing models of pollutant transport and fate will be expanded to allow the
evaluation of alternative strategies for restoring and protecting local and state watersheds.
Particular emphasis will be placed on strategies for nutrient control in rural/agrarian settings and
on strategies for pollutant control in urban settings. Approaches will be studied for effectively
monitoring the reduction of pollutants in the water column, and improvements in aquatic
ecosystems, and for demonstrating the effectiveness of protecting designated uses from future
development or other impacts.
The preservation and restoration of wetlands will be supported with research on how wetland
processes assimilate nutrient contaminants. The water quality research that defines wetland
performance is fundamental to the implementation of water quality trading programs. It will
include a comparison of natural and constructed wetlands to determine how seasonal changes in
hydrologic regime, stressor load, and upland land use affect the functioning of these systems and
will inform the protection and restoration of wetlands. Economic assessments of the use of
wetlands in water quality trading also will be conducted.
Research on the release of pathogens and pathogen indicator organisms from manure-treated
farmlands is needed to ensure that environmentally responsible practices are available to the
agricultural community. Field studies at concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) will
determine the magnitude of releases to groundwaters and surface waters and evaluate control
options with emphasis on pathogen and nutrient contaminants. This work will support the
development of effective TMDLs and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits.
133
-------
Source Control and Management (SCM) research priorities will develop information and tools to
characterize, control, and manage point and non-point sources of water quality impairment.
Research addresses aging infrastructure, green infrastructure, wet weather flows and residuals
management. Major users of these products will be the Agency, states, regional authorities and
municipalities.
Research will continue on the public health and environmental risk posed by microbial releases
from publically-owned treatment works (POTWs) during periods of significant wet weather
events. During these events wastewater flow may exceed POTW treatment capacity, resulting in
diversion of wastewater around secondary treatment units followed by recombination
(i.e./'blending") with flows from the secondary treatment units or discharging it directly into
waterways from the treatment plant.
In FY2011, research will continue on the development of innovative solutions to manage the
nation's aging wastewater infrastructure. Research started in FY2007 under the Water
Infrastructure for the 21st Century initiative will continue to develop the science and engineering
to improve and evaluate promising innovative technologies and techniques to increase the
effectiveness and reduce the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of aging and
failing wastewater conveyance systems. Research efforts will demonstrate technologies and
approaches for new and innovative condition assessment, rehabilitation, and design of
wastewater collection systems and comprehensive asset management. This research will support
EPA in developing policy and revolving funds allocation decisions to address this multi-billion
dollar problem faced by the nation, and will support utilities and other stakeholders involved in
meeting community watershed management goals and in the cost-effective assessment,
rehabilitation and management of their systems.
Research on the performance of non-point source BMPs will be conducted in order to provide
information to watershed managers and others for the more cost-effective reduction of pollutant
loading to surface waters. Particular emphasis will be placed on green infrastructure, a
component of aging water infrastructure research, (see below) and on the variation of BMP cost
and performance with geographical and other major influencing variables. EPA will continue to
support the Pathogens Equivalency Committee (PEC) which evaluates innovative approaches to
sewage sludge treatment for the purposes of determining whether they meet requirement of Part
503 (biosolids) regulations.
The Water Quality research program has implemented several actions to improve management
and performance. Researchers in the Water Quality and Drinking Water research programs are
working together on integrated, goal-oriented issues. Efforts are underway to plan and execute
work in a more integrated fashion to adapt to and address the future of water resources
management. This will help ensure that natural and engineered aquatic systems have the
capacity and resiliency to meet current and future water quality needs to support growing
societal, industrial, agricultural, and ecological water availability requirements. Additionally, in
FY 2011 portions of the Water Quality research program will be aligned with portions of the
Drinking Water research program to focus on high priority problems affecting water quality and
availability. This base shift will improve understanding of critical water resource questions with
cross-cutting implications for water quality and drinking water.
134
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#1) delivered
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#2) delivered
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
86
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#3) delivered
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of WQRP
publications in high
impact journals.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
15.7
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of WQRP
publications rated as
highly cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
16.7
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 2.3—Enhance
Science and Research. Specifically, the program conducts leading-edge, sound scientific
research to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, as well as to support the protection of
aquatic ecosystems. In FY 2011, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and
delivering 100 percent of its planned outputs. In achieving these targets, the program will
contribute to EPA's goal of protecting water quality and human health.
135
-------
FY 2010 Change from FY 2011 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$5,950.0 \ +7.0 FTE) This reflects a more than doubling of funding for green
infrastructure research to improve urban watershed management practices and facilitate
the nation's transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems. The increase also
includes 7.0 FTE with associated payroll of $915.0. A significant portion of funds will
support STAR grants to leverage the most innovative thinking by academia's top
scientists.
• (+$1,036.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$863.0 \ +1.1 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes 1.1 FTE with associated payroll
of $143.0. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment
needs.
• (+$183.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$92.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$1,000.0) This reflects a realignment of resources previously supporting science needs
for the five year review and revision process for recreational criteria (Beaches program),
to hydraulic fracturing work within the Drinking Water research program. In particular,
as the Beaches work nears completion, human health effects work will be discontinued.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; ODBA; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA; ESA;
NAWCA; FIFRA; TSCA; ERDDA.
136
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
137
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,478.1
$3,776.4
$45,254.5
197.0
FY2010
Enacted
$44,789.0
$3,404.0
$48,193.0
188.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,626.0
$3,350.0
$48,976.0
202.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$837.0
($54.0)
$783.0
14.2
Program Project Description:
Human health risk assessment is a process where information is analyzed to determine if an
environmental hazard might cause harm to exposed persons (National Research Council, 1983).
EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program generates health assessments that are
used extensively by EPA Program and Regional Offices and other parties to determine the
potential risk to public health from exposure to environmental contaminants to develop
regulatory standards, and to manage environmental cleanups. The range of research programs
and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our
environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions
through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
EPA's human health risk assessment program provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's
actions to protect Americans' public health and the environment and supports the
Administrator's priorities for improving air quality, assuring the safety of chemicals and
protecting America's waters. Three complementary areas comprise the Human Health Risk
Assessment program:
1) The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other priority health assessments;
2) Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development; and
3) Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) of criteria air pollutants.
IRIS and other health hazard assessments: Peer reviewed, qualitative and quantitative health
hazard assessments are prepared on environmental pollutants of major relevance to EPA's
regulatory mandates. These assessments are used by EPA's Program and Regional Offices to
support their decision making and also are disseminated to the public on the IRIS internet
database.30 IRIS is widely used throughout EPA and the risk assessment/risk management
community as the premier source of hazard and dose-response information for environmental
pollutants. As of January 2010, more than 550 health hazard assessments were available
through IRIS.
30 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
138
-------
Methods, Models and Approaches to Improve Risk Assessment Science: Risk assessment
approaches, methods, and models are needed to enhance the quality and objectivity of
assessments through the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances. These
developments are often first used in the development of IRIS assessments and ISAs.
However, they often support decision making by EPA's Program and Regional Offices as
well. These scientific products are externally peer reviewed and disseminated through the
published literature and EPA Web sites.
Integrated Science Assessments: Congress requires that EPA regularly summarize the state-
of-the-science for criteria air pollutants—ozone, particulate matter, sulfur and nitrous oxides,
carbon monoxide, and lead—to assist EPA's Air and Radiation program in determining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These integrated science assessments
(formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents) are major risk assessments that undergo rigorous
external peer review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
This research program is guided by the Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan31
(MYP), which details the products planned under this program. The MYP also outlines research
needs and priorities for making decisions central to EPA's implementation of its statutory
responsibilities and in its mission to protect human health and the environment. Performance
outputs and outcomes are documented in the MYP and are linked to the program's annual and
long-term performance measures. The MYP also outlines coordination efforts with a number of
EPA research strategies and plans32 (e.g., Human Health Research Strategy, Drinking Water
MYP, Clean Air MYP) to obtain the information necessary to inform risk assessment outputs
and programmatic decisions.
In FY2008, an evaluation by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal
advisory committee composed of independent expert scientists and engineers—concluded that
the Human Health Risk Assessment program "has been highly responsive to the needs of the
program offices and regions," producing products that are critical to EPA's regulatory mission
and forming the foundation for regulatory decisions and policies. This prospective and
retrospective review evaluated the program's relevance, quality, performance, and scientific
leadership. The evaluation found that the program is making substantial and satisfactory
progress, has clearly defined milestones and provides additional essential support to EPA
programs to respond to unscheduled emergency needs. The BOSC's evaluation and
recommendations are being used to help plan, implement, and strengthen the program over the
next five years. In mid 2010, the BOSC will review the progress of the HHRA program in
implementing its previous recommendations.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA requests $29.4 million to continue to develop IRIS and other health hazard
assessments. EPA will continue to evaluate the implementation of the new IRIS process over
time. This will address concerns and recommendations in the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) High Risk Series report identifying weaknesses in the IRIS process to ensure
31 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htrn/multi-yearplans.htrn
32 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/researchstrategies.htm and http://www.epa.gov/ord/htni/multi-yearplans.htm.
139
-------
that the program effectively meets the needs of EPA, the Federal government, and the American
public.
In the area of risk assessment guidance, methods and models, the Agency requests $9.4 million
in FY 2011. This continued investment will make improvements in the following areas:
• Applying mode of action information in risk assessments;
• Characterizing risks to susceptible populations;
• Characterizing environmental exposures for use in risk assessments;
• Improving quantification of health risks (e.g., PBPK and BBDR modeling, categorical
regression, meta analysis approaches);
• Improving characterization of variability and uncertainty analysis in risk assessment; and
• Applying cumulative risk assessment principles to health assessments
In addition, EPA requests $6.8 million in FY2011 for the Human Health Risk Assessment
program to continue to conduct Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs). In FY 2011, the
program will:
• Continue to improve and implement a process to identify, compile, characterize, and
prioritize new scientific studies for ISAs of criteria air pollutants, as a mandated
prerequisite to EPA's review of the NAAQS and effectively meet court ordered deadlines
to provide these assessments; and
• Release external review draft ISAs for ozone and lead to contribute to EPA's Office of
Air and Radiation's review of the NAAQS and creation of state-of-the-science methods
for continuous evaluation of assessments of new scientific information on criteria air
pollutants.
These continued investments will allow the Human Health Risk Assessment program to make
significant progress toward its long-term goals of providing state-of-the-science health hazard
assessment information. The ISAs provide important scientific analytics in support of many of
EPA's important rulemakings.
The Human Health Risk Assessment program is taking a number of steps to further improve
productivity including revising management controls to better incorporate both programmatic
priorities and the level of effort required to increase the number of IRIS assessments completed
each year; implementing new performance measures to improve performance management; and
investigating alternative approaches for measuring progress related to providing timely, high
quality scientific assessments.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of HHRA
Technical Support
Documents.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
140
-------
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people and
communities.
The program gauges its annual and long term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. The program continues to track the percent completion of key
milestones, including the on-time delivery of HHRA health assessments and technical support
documents. The current IRIS process was streamlined in 2009 in response to GAO
recommendations and the program's newest measures will be formalized and the targets for
outputs adjusted accordingly.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$601.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$255.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known,
FY 2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$76.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$410.0 \ -0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a minor reduction of resources in support of
risk assessment research and includes decreased associated payroll of $128.0. It will
delay some work addressing benchmark dose software updates. This change reflects
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
skills and Agency priorities.
• (+$483.0 \ +1.1 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, including 1.1 FTE with associated payroll of
$156.0. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs.
• (-$16.0 \ +14.0 FTE) This FTE increase supports development of Integrated Science
Assessments (ISAs) and strengthens the Agency's work on addressing risk assessment
methods, a top priority for the Administration, and includes 14.0 FTE with associated
payroll of $1,988.0. In addition, $2,011.0 in extramural funds are redirected to payroll to
support these critical risk assessment FTE. This represents an on-going realignment of
administrative FTE to meet court-ordered NAAQS deadlines.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; CERCLA; SARA; FQPA; ERDDA.
141
-------
Research: Computational Toxicology
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,710.1
$13,710.1
36.9
FY2010
Enacted
$20,048.0
$20,048.0
32.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$21,855.0
$21,855.0
34.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,807.0
$1,807.0
1.9
Program Project Description:
Computational Toxicology is the application of mathematical and computer models to help
assess the hazards and risk chemicals pose to human health and the environment. Supported by
advances in informatics, high-throughput screening, and genomics, computational toxicology
offers scientists the ability to develop a more detailed understanding of the risks posed by large
numbers of chemicals, while at the same time reducing the use of animals for toxicological
testing.
EPA is developing robust and flexible computational tools that can be applied to the thousands
of contaminants and contaminant mixtures found in America's air, water, and hazardous-waste
sites in support of the Administrator's priorities for improving air quality, assuring the safety of
chemicals, cleaning up our communities and protecting America's waters. The range of research
programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis
of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable
solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
Established in 2003, EPA's Computational Toxicology Research program (CTRP) has the
longterm goal of improving understanding about the relationship of sources of chemicals in the
environment and their potential to cause adverse health effects by providing tools for screening
for exposures and hazards and prioritizing chemicals for additional follow up assessments. The
National Center for Computational Toxicology, established in 2005, comprises the largest
component of the CTRP. Research under this program is also conducted through EPA's Science
to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program and other EPA laboratories. The strategic directions
of the CTRP are highly consistent with the National Research Council report "Toxicity Testing
in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy"33 (Tox21), and include several substantial
and innovative projects in chemical screening and prioritization, informatics, and systems
biology34 The tools are transforming environmental health protection by providing risk assessors
and managers more efficient and effective methods for managing chemical risks.
33Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Toxicitv_Testing_final.pdf
34 http://www.epa.gov/ncct/pdf/ORD NCCT Imp Plan.pdf
142
-------
The contribution of the STAR program to the CTRP includes two centers in bioinformatics and
two in computational toxicology. The bioinformatics centers will have completed their work by
FY 2011. The newest STAR computational toxicology center focuses on developmental toxicity.
The research of these centers will help fill gaps in our understanding of the molecular pathways
that may result in toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus, which we know represent highly
susceptible life stages to chemical exposure. As these pathways are identified, assays will be
developed to test their sensitivity to thousands of chemicals.
Partnering With Others
All of these CTRP efforts are coordinated with other Federal partners through the Tox21
initiative in order to hasten this transformation in environmental health protection35. The CTRP
efforts are also at the core of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Strategic Plan for
Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals36' The Strategic Plan and the CTRP Implementation Plan
for FY 2009-2012 highlight the unique capabilities of EPA to provide the necessary science to
transform how chemical and other risk assessments are performed, and thus support improved
management of environmental contaminants and chemical risk.
Scientific review of the CTRP is conducted by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a
Federal Advisory Committee composed of independent expert scientists and engineers. The
fourth review of the CTRP by the BOSC subcommittee occurred in late 2009. The draft report
for this review will be vetted by the BOSC Executive Committee at their meeting in February
2010.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The CTRP Implementation Plan will focus on three key areas in FY 2011:
• Chemical prioritization and categorization tools;
• Information technology; and
• Systems biology models under a unified long term goal of providing high-throughput
decisions support tools for chemical exposure, as well as hazard and risk assessment to
EPA's regulatory program offices.
Chemical Prioritization and Categorization Tools
Managing the risks from toxic chemicals in the environment to protect human health is a top
priority for EPA. Given the thousands of chemicals in use, to achieve this goal the Agency must
continue improving its capability to predict which chemicals present the greatest risk and are in
need of toxicology testing, and which endpoints would be the most important to examine. To
address this need, in FY 2007, EPA launched its ToxCast™ research program, which employs
new automated laboratory methods, developed by the pharmaceutical industry, to test chemicals
for their impacts on cell function in less time and for less cost than animal studies. This "high-
throughput screening" enables testing on a backlog of chemicals that have not previously been
tested, or have not been thoroughly tested, to determine if they are toxic to humans or the
environment.
35 Collins et al., 2008, Science; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/906.pdf
36National Service Center for Environmental Publications P.O. Box 42419 Cincinnati ,OH 45242 # 100K09001
143
-------
In Phase I of ToxCast™, the Agency obtained high-throughput screening data on 320 chemicals
with known toxicological profiles. More than 600 endpoints for each chemical were obtained
using high-throughput screening assays. Data collection for Phase I was completed in FY 2009,
although analysis of the unique data resource continues. ToxCast™ efforts have been expanded
by EPA partnerships with NIH via the Tox21 collaboration. The Tox21 partnership brings
together the hundreds of ToxCast™ assays, with the thousands of chemicals being tested at the
NIH Chemical Genomics Center37
Phase II of ToxCast consists of efforts to profile the activities of up to 700 additional compounds
in order to broaden the diversity of chemicals tested and evaluate the predictive nature of
bioactivity signatures. One unique aspect of Phase II is a partnership with Pfizer that will
provide more than 100 chemicals proven toxic to humans in clinical trials. This information will
allow for direct comparison of ToxCast™ results with effects in humans. With successful
completion of Phase II (scheduled for FY 2012), ToxCast™ technologies can be applied to
chemicals and other materials of concern to EPA program offices (e.g. nanomaterials).
In FY 2011, the CTRP will increase funding for research using next-generation tools to speed
and facilitate implementation of the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
The application of these tools will introduce a potentially more efficient approach to identifying
potential endocrine disrupters and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical, for
example by using the 2006 Information Update Rule (IUR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Given the thousands of chemicals in use and the potential risks to human health and the
environment, this research is critical to help the Agency meet its priority of strengthening
chemicals management and risk assessment.
Continuing from FY 2010 into FY 2011, EPA is launching ExpoCast™. The initiation of the
ExpoCast™ program will ensure that the required exposure science and computational tools are
ready to address global needs for rapid characterization of exposure potential arising from the
manufacture and use of tens of thousands of chemicals. Outcomes of the program also will meet
challenges posed by new toxicity testing approaches. The overall goal of this project is to
develop novel approaches and tools for screening, evaluating and classifying chemicals, based on
the potential for biologically-relevant human exposure, to inform prioritization and toxicity
testing. An emphasis will be placed on conducting research to mine and translate scientific
advances and tools in a broad range of fields to provide information that can be used to support
enhanced exposure assessments for decision making and improved environmental health.
ExpoCast™ will provide an overarching framework for the science required to characterize
biologically-relevant exposure in support of the Agency computational toxicology program.
ExpoCast™ is expected to require several years of investment to be fully operational but, like
ToxCast™, it will have interim milestones. By FY 2011, EPA expects to have the first relational
databases of exposure studies available through EPA's ACToR system (see description below).
Information Technology
Advanced information management systems are needed to mine existing data for patterns, and to
appropriately place new chemicals of unknown hazard within the context of data on existing
37 Collins et al., 2008, Science; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/906.pdf
144
-------
chemicals. These advanced systems allow the integration of data from many different domains of
toxicology, and allow for efficient expansion with information on new chemicals and other
materials.
EPA has developed several advanced databases and management applications. The Aggregated
Computational Toxicology Resource project (ACToR)38, is a Web-based public resource that
currently has information from over 200 sources on over 500 thousand chemicals and other
substances. ACToR organizes information from various data generation efforts including:
• EPA's ToxCast™ and ExpoCast™ programs,
• EPA's Toxicology Reference Database (ToxRefDB)39,
40
• EPA's Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network , and
• The Tox21 high-throughput screening collaboration of EPA and NIH.
The CTRP will significantly expand data generation and management systems throughout the
next several years as more data sources (e.g., those covering exposure analyses) and user
functionality (e.g., bulk searching) are added in quarterly updates.
Systems Biology Models
Modeling now plays a crucial role in practically all areas of biological research. Systems models
integrate information at all levels of organization and aid in bridging the source-to-outcome gap
and in conducting quantitative risk assessments. In FY 2011, this research will continue to:
• Provide standards for developing, documenting, archiving, and accessing quantitative
mathematical models;
• Utilize systems-modeling approaches for the latest biological, chemical, and exposure
data for quantitative risk assessment;
• Develop guidance on best practices for the construction, analysis and reporting of
toxicological models that link pharmacokinetic information with the dynamic responses
of target organs; and
• Implement the Virtual Liver and Virtual Embryo Projects.
Collectively, these elements will provide a framework that integrates mechanistic information
and data for predicting the risk of adverse outcomes in humans through dynamic simulation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research.
Specifically, the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information,
models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions with a focus on
human, community, and ecosystem health. Currently, there are no formal external performance
measures for this specific program, however, the program has annual research milestones that are
included in the multi-year research plans for Human Health and Pesticides and Toxics. The
CTRP tracks and manages performance through the timely completion of these milestones.
38 http://actor.epa.gov/actor/faces/ACToRHome.jsp
39 http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxrefdb/
40 http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.html
145
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase for next-generation tools to speed and facilitate
implementation of the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP). The
application of these tools will introduce a more efficient approach to identifying potential
endocrine disrupters and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical. This
research is critical to help the Agency meet its priority of strengthening chemicals
management and risk assessment.
• (+$285.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known,
FY 2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$473.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (+$23.0 \ +1.9 FTE) This increase reflects the net result of realignments of resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, including 1.9 FTE with associated payroll of
$251.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE allocations as well as
scientific equipment needs.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SOW A; ERDA.
146
-------
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,948.7
$9,948.7
50.6
FY2010
Enacted
$11,355.0
$11,355.0
50.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$17,378.0
$17,378.0
44.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$6,023.0
$6,023.0
-5.9
Program Project Description:
The Endocrine Disrupters Research program provides direct support to EPA's endocrine
screening and testing programs (mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments41 of 1996) by evaluating current testing protocols and
developing new protocols to evaluate potential endocrine effects of environmental agents. The
research program also develops and applies methods, models, and measures to evaluate real-
world exposures to endocrine disrupters and characterize related effects resulting from these
exposures for humans and wildlife. In addition, the program develops risk management tools to
prevent or mitigate exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
Research assists decision-makers in reducing and preventing exposure of humans and
ecosystems to endocrine disrupters. EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Research program contributes
to the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect Americans against unreasonable
risk from exposure to toxicants that interfere with the endocrine system and supports the
Administrator's priorities for assuring the safety of chemicals, protecting America's waters and
building strong state and Tribal partnerships. The range of research programs and initiatives will
both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and
human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through
approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
Research is guided by the Endocrine Disrupters Research Plan (EDRP) which was developed
with participation from major research clients and stakeholders to outline research needs and
priorities.42 The Agency also maintains a multi-year plan (MYP)43 for Endocrine Disrupters
research that outlines steps for meeting these needs, as well as annual performance goals and key
research outputs for evaluating progress.
41 SDWA Section 1457.
42 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters. Washington, D.C.: EPA (1998).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/ORD-EDR-Febl998.pdf.
43 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Multi-Year Plan for Endocrine Disrupters (draft). Washington, D.C.: EPA (2007).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/npd/pdfs/Draft-EDCs-MYP-091407.pdf.
147
-------
Scientific review of the EDRP is conducted by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a
Federal advisory committee composed of independent expert scientists and engineers. In April
2008, a BOSC subcommittee evaluated the EDRP and its progress on implementation of the
recommendations from previous BOSC program reviews. The subcommittee commended the
progress and direction of the research44 and rated the overall progress of the EDRP program as
"exceeds expectations."
The subcommittee noted that "this program has established itself as a leader in several areas of
EDCs research. It has leveraged expertise across the Agency and with other Federal and
academic scientists; it has been quick to respond and adapt its focus and research questions to the
rapidly changing research landscape of EDCs; and it has developed an excellent new MYP. The
EDRP has accomplished a remarkable amount in the face of diminishing financial resources." In
reviewing EPA's response to the recommendations45 from the previous BOSC review, the
subcommittee acknowledged that the research program "partnered extensively with other
agencies with interests in EDCs." The subcommittee remarked that "EPA has been a leader in
the development of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, computational modeling, and whole
animal endpoints to identify biomarkers of exposure to EDCs."
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, resources will continue to be used to develop, evaluate, and apply innovative DNA
microarray and other state-of-the-art analytical methods for endocrine disrupting chemicals.
EPA has developed and refined assays and improved other screening tools using new molecular
capabilities so that the Agency has the necessary protocols for use in the Endocrine Disrupters
Screening program. Using genomics and related approaches to develop improved molecular and
computational tools can help prioritize chemicals for screening and testing that will lead to a
reduction of animal testing. This work has been highlighted as a priority for cross-government
investment. It is also consistent with the National Research Council's 2007 report on "Toxicity
Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy," which recommends that the
Agency move toward using new technologies to prioritize and screen for chemicals.46
In FY 2011, the research program will continue:
• Finalizing Tier 2 testing assays - a high priority for the Agency in implementing the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP);
• Developing the next generation of EDSP assays by applying newer computational and
molecular approaches to develop models that predict a chemical's ability to cause
endocrine disruption;
• Determining classes and potencies of chemicals that act as endocrine disrupters,
characterizing modes of action and the shape of the dose-response curve, developing
44 U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. EDC Research Program Review. Washington, D.C. (2008)
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/edcmc0804rpt.pdf.
45 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, EDC Research Program Review. Washington, D.C. (2005).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/edc0504rpt.pdf.
46 National Academies Press (2007). Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php7record id=l 1970#toc.
148
-------
approaches for assessing cumulative risk, and developing methods for extrapolating
results across species, which would lead to reduced animal testing;
• Developing molecular indicators of exposure and analytical methods for detecting certain
EDCs, identifying the key factors that influence human exposures to EDCs; and
identifying sources of EDCs entering the environment, focusing on wastewater treatment
plants, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and drinking water treatment
plants; developing tools for risk reduction and mitigation strategies; and
• Applying its multidisciplinary expertise to better characterize the impact on
environmental media and aquatic organisms of real world releases of endocrine active
compounds (including natural hormones, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and
Pharmaceuticals) from wastewater treatment plants, CAFOs, and drinking water plants
and developing risk management and mitigation strategies.
The FY 2011 request includes significant additional funding to award research grants to
academia under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program, complementing the
Agency's intramural research effort on EDCs. The additional resources will allow for an
acceleration in the application of the latest state of the art technologies and innovations to
advance the assessment and management of environmental endocrine disrupters and other
emerging contaminants of concern, in order to better ensure rapid, agile, and accurate protection
of human health and wildlife. EPA anticipates that these activities will directly benefit the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
Researchers in the Endocrine Disrupters, the Pesticides and Toxics, and Human Health research
programs will work together on integrated, goal oriented issues, and will plan and execute work
to develop high capacity decision support tools for managing contaminants across their life-
cycles. This research will build upon and expand the activities conducted within the
Computational Toxicology Program and its partnerships with the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and the NIH Chemical Genomics Center. The program will
provide partners, such as EPA's Program and Regional Offices, other federal agencies,
international agencies, and the general scientific community, with a more efficient means of
assessing exposure and hazards of chemicals. Partners will be able to efficiently evaluate the
impact of large numbers of chemicals in everyday commerce on human health (individual and
susceptible populations) facilitating prioritization for further chemical research, management,
and product design decisions. The program has worked to articulate its research and
development priorities to ensure compelling, merit-based justifications for funding allocations in
response to assessments of its purpose, performance planning and management.
Performance Targets:
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on endocrine-active pesticides and toxic chemicals.
Currently, there are no annual performance measures for this program project. The program's
long-term performance measures are: (1) to provide improved screening and testing protocols for
149
-------
use in implementing the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening program; (2) to determine the
extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the environment to better
inform the Federal and scientific communities; and (3) to reduce the uncertainty regarding the
effects, exposure, assessment, and management of endocrine disrupters so that EPA has a sound
scientific foundation for environmental decision-making. The research program also has
developed performance indicators that monitor research activities and outputs. Targets for these
include screening and testing protocols that EPA's Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
program will validate for use in evaluating the potential for chemicals to cause endocrine-
mediated effects.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$7,000.0) This increase funds additional Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grants.
Additional research funding will award grants to academia through ORD's STAR
program, complementing the Agency's intramural research effort on endocrine disrupting
chemicals (EDCs). This will allow for an acceleration of applying the latest state of the
art technologies and innovations to advance the assessment and management of
environmental endocrine disrupters and other emerging contaminants of concern.
• (+$37.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For that program, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to
small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After
the FY 2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is
known, FY 2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$43.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$770.0 \ -4.3 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes a reduction of 4.3 FTE with
decreased associated payroll of $576.0. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as
well as scientific equipment needs.
• (-$415.0 \ -1.6 FTE) This represents a net realignment of FTE and resources for research
to address exposure issues related to potential chemical and/or pesticide stressors to better
reflect program support needs, and includes a reduction of 1.6 FTE with decreased
associated payroll of $214.0. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy
that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (+$214.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; ERDDA; FIFRA; TSCA; FQPA; SOW A; CWA; RCRA; CERCLA; PPA.
150
-------
Research: Fellowships
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,760.7
$5,760.7
6.2
FY2010
Enacted
$11,083.0
$11,083.0
2.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$17,286.0
$17,286.0
5.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
2.4
Program Project Description:
EPA places a high priority on ensuring that our nation has a large and well-trained scientific and
engineering workforce that can address complex environmental issues. The range of research
programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis
of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable
solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering. To help achieve
excellence in science and technology education in these and other areas, EPA offers five
programs that encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in
environmentally-related fields.
According to a July 2004 publication by the National Science and Technology Council entitled
Science for the 21st Century., beginning in 1998, the U.S. experienced a significant decline in
science and engineering doctorates. EPA's fellowships programs help address this decline by
educating new academic researchers, government scientists, science teachers, and environmental
engineers. They also play a key role in developing a talent pool from which EPA can recruit
and hire scientists. The following are EPA's current fellowships programs:
Science to Achieve Results (STAR Fellowship Program)47 EPA's STAR Fellowship program
supports master's and doctoral candidates in environmental studies. Students in the U.S.
compete for STAR fellowships through a rigorous review process. The review process is merit-
based and takes into consideration whether the proposed area of the applicant's research and
study will:
• Strengthen the scientific basis for environmental management decisions and practices;
• Produce data, methods, or practices to help the scientific or regulated community to
better understand and/or manage complex environmental problems;
• Provide a focus for future research and technology development in science, engineering,
or modeling approaches for assessing and managing environmental risks; or
• Focus on the potential of the research outputs to have broader societal impacts.
47 For more information, see http://epa.gov/ncer/fellow.
151
-------
On average, approximately ten percent of STAR program applicants receive a fellowship.
Students can pursue degrees in traditionally recognized environmental disciplines, as well as
other fields such as social anthropology, urban and regional planning, and decision sciences. To
support these advanced degree-seeking students, EPA provides assistance for up to three years in
the form of a stipend ($20,000/year), a research budget ($5,000/year) and tuition assistance (up
to $12,000/year). The program has provided new environmental research in physical, biological,
health and social sciences, and engineering. At least one student from each of the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico has received an EPA STAR Fellowship.
Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Undergraduate Fellowship Program:! EPA's GRO
Undergraduate Fellowship program helps build capacity in universities that receive limited
funding for research and development by awarding fellowships to undergraduate students in
environmental fields. These institutions receive less than $35 million annually in Federal science
and technology funds. Eligible students receive support for their junior and senior years of
undergraduate study and complete an internship at an EPA facility during the summer between
their junior and senior years. EPA provides up to $19,250 a year for academic support and
$8,000 of support for the three-month summer internship with EPA. In addition to conducting
quality environmental research, fellows agree to maintain contact with EPA for at least five years
after graduation. EPA uses the information gathered from its fellows to track their success in
pursuing advanced degrees in environmental studies and finding a career in science and
engineering. Of the fellows who received fellowships between FY 2003 and FY 2006 and
reported information to EPA, 78 percent reported that they were working or studying in an
environmentally-related field.
Environmental Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program:48 In conjunction with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), EPA places qualified technical
professionals with a Ph.D. degree or equivalent in EPA headquarters for up to two years to
design and work on projects at the interface of science and policy. In this way, fellows develop a
better understanding of the needs of policymakers and how to make their research more
meaningful to those who depend on it. EPA's interests are wide ranging, and fellows can work
on any environmentally relevant issue within EPA's jurisdiction. Fellows are awarded annual
stipends ranging between $70,000 and $95,000. Since the program began in 2005, EPA has
hosted 263 fellows, and these fellows have been placed in every program office within EPA.
Currently, EPA hosts roughly a dozen fellows each year.
Environmental Public Health Fellowship Program:49 To enhance the training of highly
qualified and motivated public health professionals, EPA, in conjunction with the Association of
Schools of Public Health (ASPH), offers professional development opportunities to graduates of
accredited U.S. schools of public health who have received at least a Master of Public Health or
equivalent degree within the last five years. The goal of the program is to provide real-world
experience in environmental public health issues to complement participants' academic training.
These fellows are placed in EPA laboratory, regional, program or research management offices
across the country. Fellows are awarded annual stipends of up to $50,000 and funding to defray
health insurance costs and a travel and professional development budget. EPA's goal is to place
32 fellows in EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices, and laboratories each year.
48 For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.0rg/01 About/01 Partners.shtml#EPA.
49For more information, see http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=751&JobProg ID=1.
152
-------
EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:50 In FY 2005, EPA began a partnership with the
government of the United Kingdom under the auspices of the highly regarded Marshall
Scholarship program. Since 1953, the Marshall Scholarship program has provided opportunities
for highly motivated students to receive support for two years of graduate study in Great Britain,
culminating in a Master's Degree. The EPA Marshall Scholarship program extends that
opportunity for students who are interested in environmental careers, particularly those fields
that address environmental problems of a global nature or benefit multilateral efforts. Under this
program, eligible students who successfully complete the first two years as a Marshall Scholar
may receive up to three more years of support towards the award of a doctoral degree in an
environmentally-related technical discipline. Marshall Scholars receive approximately $40,000 a
year to cover university tuition and fees, a stipend, program-related expenses, and travel to and
from the United States.
These five fellowship programs represent a long term investment aimed at:
• Enhancing environmental research and development,
• Improving the nation's promotion of green principles, and
• Increasing the nation's environmental workforce, post secondary environmentally-related
educational opportunities, and environmental literacy.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee composed of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted a review of
the STAR and GRO fellowship programs in March 2006. The subcommittee reported that "the
fellows funded by the STAR and GRO programs have made excellent contributions in
environmental science and engineering, and a number of them continue to be employed in the
environmental field...the EPA programs clearly are of value to the Agency and the nation in
helping to educate the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers."51
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
One of the Administration's top priorities in 2011 is strengthening science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education at every level (from pre-college to post-graduate to
lifelong learning). This program supports that priority by helping to ensure the Nation has a
diverse workforce to meet the scientific, technological, and engineering challenges of tomorrow.
It is an investment in EPA's future and our ability to ensure that science remains the backbone of
EPA for years to come. The FY 2011 budget request would provide more than a 75 percent
increase for fellowships. New fellowships will be awarded through nationwide competition in
academic areas that are top priorities for EPA including nanotechnology, climate and clean air
issues, and green infrastructure. EPA will award approximately 240 new STAR fellowships in
addition to providing support for an estimated 120 continuing STAR fellows. Fellowship
recipients will complete progress and exit reports, and the Agency will maintain contact
50 For more information, see http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applications/epa.
5' EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Review of the Office of Research and Development's Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
and Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
B.C.: EPA (2006), 1-2. See http://epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/star0609rpt.pdf
153
-------
information and follow up data on former fellows. The program also will select and arrange
hosting for AAAS and ASPH recipients and support a portion of eligible Marshall Scholarship
recipients.
EPA has incorporated "Broader Impacts Criteria" into its STAR and GRO Undergraduate
Fellowship programs. Broader Impacts Criteria require the applicant to address issues other than
the intellectual merit of their research proposal. These criteria require an applicant to address,
among other things, what broader impacts the applicant may have as a fellow, such as furthering
environmental awareness, stewardship, equity, and broadening participation of underrepresented
groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Incorporating Broader
Impact Criteria into EPA's fellowship programs not only strives to enhance the diversity found
in the country's scientific community, but also supports EPA's immediate human capital goal to
attract and retain a diverse and talented workforce by nurturing the supply of diverse persons
going into environmentally-related fields.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research.
Currently, there are no external performance measures for this specific program. However,
EPA's Research and Development program will likely begin an external evaluation of the
Fellowships program in FY 2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$6,000.0) This request reflects a more than 75 percent increase for science and
engineering fellowships under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate
Fellowship program, including $2 million for nanotechnology fellowships. The increase
also supports the Administration's priorities for investing in a diverse science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.
• (-$314.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (+$353.0 / +2.4 FTE) This increase reflects the net result of realignments of resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, including 2.4 FTE with associated payroll of
$343.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE allocations as well as
scientific equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy
that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (+$164.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
Statutory Authority: CAA; CWA; FIFRA; NCA; RCRA; SOW A; TSCA; ERDDA.
154
-------
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$155,752.0
$155,752.0
492.5
FY2010
Enacted
$159,511.0
$159,511.0
484.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$154,093.0
$154,093.0
475.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($5,418.0)
($5,418.0)
-9.6
Program Project Description:
EPA's health and ecological research programs provide the scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions to protect Americans' public health and environment and supports the
Administrator's priorities for improving air quality, assuring the safety of chemicals and
protecting America's waters. The Agency conducts integrated research on human health and
ecosystems to identify and characterize environment-related human health problems, determine
exposures to and sources of agents responsible for these health concerns, use public health
indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of risk management decisions, quantify the impacts of
human activities on the benefits and services provided by ecosystems, measure the relationship
between human well being and ecosystem services, and provide tools for policy makers and
managers to protect and restore ecosystem services through informed decision making at
multiple spatial and temporal scales.
The program also supports mercury research, advanced monitoring research, nanotechnology
research, exploratory research, and the Agency's Report on the Environment (ROE). The range
of research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the
scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design
of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
The Human Health Research Program (HHRP) continues to characterize and reduce
uncertainties in risk assessment within the framework of "developing and linking indicators of
risk" along the potential source-to-exposure-to-effects-to-disease continuum. The program is
evolving from a single chemical approach to one that addresses the cumulative risk of multiple
chemicals in the context of community settings. Advanced exposure models and information
about key molecular events in toxicity pathways are being used to illuminate potential risks of
environmental contaminants in real world settings where chemical and non-chemical stressors
interact to impact human health. Tools and indicators are being developed and verified to help
decision makers measure and demonstrate reductions in environmental-related human disease
incidence or severity that results from their risk management actions. The program addresses
limitations, gaps, and challenges articulated in EPA's Report on the Environment (2008) and is
responding to recommendations in the National Research Council's reports "Toxicity Testing in
the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy" (2007) and "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk
Assessment (2009).
155
-------
In FY 2009, the Ecosystem Services research program (ESRP) fully transitioned to its new focus
on conserving and protecting ecosystem services through proactive decision making52 This
focus synthesizes and builds upon the program's previous accomplishments in quantifying the
ecological condition of the nation's aquatic resources, as well as in developing ecological
stressor-response models, methods to forecast alternative future scenarios, and methods to
restore ecological functions and ecosystem services within degraded systems. By integrating
these tools within a common framework to assess ecosystem services, the program can better
investigate and advance opportunities for more quickly achieving desired environmental
outcomes at lower cost and with fewer unintended consequences.
Research is guided by the "Human Health Research Strategy"53 and the "Ecological Research
Strategy,"54 which were developed in collaboration with major clients and stakeholders (e.g.,
EPA's program and Regional Offices). These strategies outline research needs and priorities. In
addition, multi-year plans (MYPs)55 (e.g., human health, ecological research, and mercury)
convey research priorities and approaches for achieving the goals and objectives of protecting
communities. MYPs outline the steps for meeting client research needs, as well as annual
performance goals and key research outputs for evaluating progress.
In December 2009, an evaluation by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal
advisory committee composed of independent expert scientists and engineers—concluded that
the HHRP exceeds expectations in the area of developing tools to evaluate risk, while meeting
expectations in all other areas. The BOSC report56 noted that HHRP is much more integrated
since the previous review. Also, there is considerably more emphasis on human health and human
health-related issues, as well as movement toward more of a public health-themed program. The
BOSC also stated that "[t]he HHRP, as a whole, appears to be robust and responsive to emerging
issues," and that "[fjhere appears to be good evidence for strong scientific productivity and a
formidable impact of the work produced by the program overall."
The ESRP has been recognized as holding a unique position within the Federal government for
its research to establish and communicate a greater understanding of the value of ecosystem
services and their interdependent relationship to human activities and well being57. In 2007, the
mid-cycle BOSC review of the ESRP resulted in a rating of "Meets Expectations" for work
completed to date.58 A full program review by the BOSC will take place in FY 2011.
In 2008, EPA's Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC) stated in its review of the program that:
52 The ESRP name came from a recommendation by the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee to adopt a name that
better reflects the program's role as the Agency's first integrated research program to address the difficult topic of maintaining,
enhancing, and restoring the services provided by the natural environment.
53 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Human Health Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA. Available at:
http://www.epa. go v/nheerl/humanhealth/HHRS_final_web.pdf
54 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/eco.pdf
55 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-vearplans.htm.
56 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors. Review of the Office of Research and Development's Human Health Research
Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Washington: EPA, 2009). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hh0912rpt.pdf
57BOSC 2007 http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/.
58 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors. Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's Human Health
Research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Washington: EPA, 2007). Available at: http://epa.gov/osp/bosc/.
156
-------
"The draft Plan articulates a new strategic direction that focuses on quantifying
ecosystem services and their contribution to human health and well-being. The SAB
strongly supports this strategic direction and commends the Agency for developing a
research program that, if properly funded and executed, has the potential to be
transformative for environmental decision making as well as for ecological science. The
SAB finds that the research focus on ecosystem services represents a suitable approach to
integrate ecological processes and human welfare. The ESRP's focus on ecosystem
services can provide a sound foundation for environmental decisions and regulation
based on the dependence of humans on ecological conditions and processes."59
The program was again reviewed in July 2009, and the final report60 was released in September.
The SAB found that the ESRP is "bold, innovative, and necessary", and "because it is taking an
integrated multidisciplinary approach to addressing multiple stressors acting within and across
media, the research program has the potential, with appropriate support, to transform the way
environmental decisions are made within and outside of EPA."
EPA and its external reviewers, including the EPA Science Advisory Board and National
Science Foundation, have recognized that a statute-specific research approach is limited in its
potential for solving modern environmental problems. While the Human Health and the
Pesticides and Toxics research programs have made many important contributions to EPA
decision making and have worked to integrate various disciplines throughout the programs, they
could benefit by building upon important synergies and emerging tools to address these evolving
environmental problems. Therefore, moving in that direction, portions of the Human Health
research program are being aligned with related aspects of the Pesticides and Toxics research
program. The result will be a more holistic research program that maximizes responsiveness to
the rapidly changing needs of EPA's program and Regional Offices and other critical partners.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Human Health Research
In FY 2011, EPA's research under this program will continue to identify indicators of exposure,
effects, and susceptibility that the Agency needs to evaluate and manage health risks of chemical
contaminants for individuals, communities and populations while considering susceptibility at all
stages of the human life cycle. Increased emphasis is being placed on refining advanced
modeling tools to estimate human exposures and using 21st Century molecular and cellular tools
to identify key steps in chemically-induced toxicity. These tools will be applied in community
settings to manage risks of complex exposures and factor in non-chemical stressors that interact
with chemical stressors to impact health. Furthermore, research will identify and validate public
health indicators needed to demonstrate the benefits of regulatory decisions and actions and to
identify communities at highest risk. Of the total $154.1 million requested in FY 2011 for
Human Health and Ecosystems research, $80.1 million is requested for research in this area.
59EPA-SAB-08-011
''0http://vosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsfAVebReportsLastFiveBOARD/91190EEC56A44B3F85257641006BB7D7/$File/EP
A-SAB-09-019-unsigned.pdf
157
-------
EPA will continue to support research on modes of action of priority chemicals and build models
for cumulative risk assessments with the ultimate goal of basing regulatory decisions and rules
on sound science rather than relying on default assumptions. Such research will inform EPA's
evaluations of acceptable levels of arsenic and its metabolites in drinking water and the cancer
and non-cancer effects of conazoles and structurally related fungicides. In addition, mode of
action, exposure, and dose modeling research on pyrethroid pesticides and disinfection
byproducts will inform upcoming cumulative risk assessments by the Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances program and the Water program in EPA. New research efforts guided by the
National Research Council's report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a
Strategy" (2007), will apply molecular and genomic information to identify key events in
specific toxicity pathways and to develop virtual organ models of predictive toxicity in
collaboration with the Computational Toxicology research program.
In addition, FY 2011 research will focus on developing tools for identifying communities (e.g.
localities, populations, groups) at disproportionate risk from exposure to multiple chemicals,
identifying and quantifying the factors influencing these exposures, and developing and
implementing appropriate risk reduction strategies. Cumulative risk research will develop and
refine models for analyzing complex exposures and for predicting exposures. For example, the
Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation (SHEDS) multimedia model is EPA's state-of-
the-science probabilistic model for simulating pesticides, metals, and persistent bioaccumulative
toxins. At the community level, tools are being developed for linking various exposure
databases for use by communities and EPA's regional offices in characterizing risks. Research
will also develop methods for reconstructing exposures based upon biomarker and biomonitoring
data generated in large scale exposure and epidemiological studies. This research will enable
EPA to link such exposures to their primary sources, and facilitate use of exposure, biomarker,
and pharmacokinetic data in cumulative risk assessments. It will also help EPA to address recent
GAO recommendations in its report, Biomonitoring. EPA needs to coordinate its research
strategy and clarify its authority to obtain biomonitoring data (GAO 09-353). New efforts will
begin to identify non-chemical stressors in community settings and define the extent to which
they may modify an individual's response to a chemical stressor, possibly resulting in
disproportionate risk.
A major focus of HHRP is directed at protecting vulnerable populations and life stages,
particularly children. In 2011, EPA will continue to co-fund the Children's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention Centers (Children's Centers) with NIEHS. These unique
Children's Centers perform targeted research in children's environmental health and translate
their scientific findings into intervention and prevention strategies by working with communities.
The Children's Centers have established long term birth and school age cohorts that follow
participants over multiple years to consider the full range of health effects resulting from
exposure to environmental chemicals, as summarized in the EPA report "A Decade of Children's
Environmental Health" (2007).
Additionally, HHRP research will examine the factors that impact children's exposures in
specific environments encountered by very young children and by school aged children.
Research will focus on the impact and relationship between environmental factors and
sustainable building practices. The information obtained will help school systems verify and
158
-------
implement best practices to optimize healthy learning environments. An early product will be
new information about sources of persistent bioaccumulative toxins in schools related to its
previous use in caulking, and possible engineering solutions for reducing exposures to children
and teachers. Research also will provide fundamental information about the inherent biological,
developmental and genetic factors that determine children's susceptibility to chemically-induced
insults, including the potential of very early exposure (e.g. during pregnancy and infancy) to
contribute to the development of chronic diseases later in life such as asthma, hypertension, and
obesity. The Agency needs this information to ensure adequate protection of children and other
vulnerable groups in all its regulatory actions. Emerging risks of long term health effects such as
obesity and hypertension resulting from early life exposures are being examined in laboratory
animal models and children's cohort studies. Information gained from this research and from the
Children's Centers is informing the conduct of the National Children's Study (NCS), a
longitudinal study funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH). EPA is an active partner in
this interagency study, and will continue to provide advice and expertise to NCS, including
collaborative research to help optimize methods and interpret results.
In FY 2011, research on public health outcomes will continue to assess the cumulative impact of
a suite of air pollution reduction programs on environmental public health indicators, especially
those relevant to children and older populations. Research results on new tools to measure the
effectiveness of regulatory decisions, such as upgrades to water treatment facilities based on the
incidence of infectious disease from waterborne pathogens, will be reported. In response to gaps
identified in EPA's Report on the Environment (2008), EPA will move toward integrating a
range of valid and predictive bioindicators of exposure, susceptibility and effects to develop
approaches to assess public health impacts of regulatory decisions. These efforts include
developing and validating novel environmental health outcome indicators in community settings
through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program. This research, which assists
EPA in evaluating the impact of its risk management decisions, received a rating of "Exceeds
Expectations" from the 2009 Human Health BOSC subcommittee review.
EPA's Human Health Research program is greatly enhanced by the STAR program's
competitive, peer-reviewed grants. The STAR program has funded and will continue to fund an
array of outstanding grants that fill unique needs for community-based participatory research on
environmental public health outcomes of great concern, especially for vulnerable populations
like children and Tribal communities. For example, the program will continue to fund research
to develop and validate predictive bioindicators of exposure and effects that are needed to
develop approaches to assess public health impacts of regulatory decisions, including developing
environmental health outcome indicators. Given the heightened interest in documenting the
benefits of sustainable building practices, the program also will create opportunities to examine
the impact of school facility features, building maintenance and operation practices on the health
and performance of students and teachers.
Researchers in the Human Health and Pesticides and Toxics research programs will work
together on integrated, goal oriented issues, and will plan and execute work to develop high
capacity decision support tools for managing contaminants across their life-cycles. EPA will
provide decision makers and partners with a more efficient means of assessing exposure and
hazards of chemicals. Partners will be able to efficiently evaluate the impact of large numbers of
159
-------
chemicals in everyday commerce on human health (individual and susceptible populations)
facilitating prioritization for further chemical research, management, and product design
decisions.
A 2009 performance review of the "Human Health Research" program found that it has
"matured" since the 2005 review to become better integrated and that the "scientific content is
excellent." The BOSC subcommittee, in its December 2009 report, commended the scientific
leadership "for their attempts to enhance the coordination and communication efforts with
program offices and through interagency collaborations." The BOSC also commended "the
utilization of the combined strengths on both the intramural and extramural fronts" and noted
that "the HHRP is well organized and clearly defines its priorities and outcomes." Overall, the
BOSC indicated that the program responds to changing priorities and areas of need and has
demonstrated "significant progress" and "managed resources efficiently for achieving its [long
term goals]." The BOSC's evaluation and recommendations are being used to help plan,
implement, and strengthen the program over the next five years.
Researchers in the Human Health and Pesticides and Toxics research programs will work
together on integrated, goal oriented issues, and will plan and execute work to develop high
capacity decision support tools for managing contaminants across their life-cycles. EPA will
provide decision makers and partners with a more efficient means of assessing exposure and
hazards of chemicals. Partners will be able to efficiently evaluate the impact of large numbers of
chemicals in everyday commerce on human health (individual and susceptible populations)
facilitating prioritization for further chemical research, management, and product design
decisions.
Ecosystem Services Research
In FY 2011, the total level of funding requested for Ecosystems research is $74.0 million. The
Ecosystems Services Research Program (ESRP) responds directly to numerous scientific and
policy reports over the last decade that document the need to conserve irreplaceable services
provided by ecosystems (e.g., NAS, 199761; MA, 200562; BOSC, 200563; EPA Stewardship
Initiative, 200664; EBASP, 200665; Restoring Nature's Capital, 200766). The Millennium
Assessment (MA) is one of the most comprehensive reports to date, and documented declines in
15 of 24 ecosystem services worldwide.
The Ecosystem Services Research program is aimed at transforming the way decision makers
understand how their environmental management decisions affect the type, quantity, magnitude
and sustainability of the goods and services nature provides us. The research complements
61 "NAS 1997" = Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions, Chapter 4: EPA's Position in the Broader Research
Enterprise, National Academy of Sciences, 1997, available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309057957/html/49.html
62 http://www.millenniumassessment.org
63 BOSC 2005 http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/eco0508rpt.pdf
64 www.epa.gov/epainnov/pdf/rpt2admin.pdf
65 US EPA. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.
66 Restoring Nature's Capital: An Action Agenda to Sustain Ecosystem Services, 2007," available at
http://pdf.wri.org/restoring natures capital.pdf
160
-------
EPA's regulatory efforts by providing for a systems approach that will enable routine
investments from the private and public sectors to create new financial, social, and natural capital
(i.e., enhanced ecosystem services). For example, in FY 2010, the ESRP is conducting a scoping
study to assess the extent to which ecosystem service markets and incentives could make a cost-
effective contribution to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The focus of this new regional
study will be to demonstrate how the concept of ecosystem services can be used to achieve
reductions in nutrients beyond today's regulatory framework, using existing information and
knowledge of ecosystem services. In addition to a demonstration of the concept, the study will
include developing guidelines to provide ways to systematically assess economic, financial, and
environmental effects of decisions; compare environmental and social trade-offs. This project
builds on the results of other ESRP regional projects in the Upper Midwest, coastal Carolinas,
Tampa Bay, western Oregon, and the arid Southwest, and on national efforts focusing on
nitrogen and wetlands. This work will complement and substitute for more costly infrastructure
approaches to nutrient load reduction such as publicly owned treatment works, upgrades and
storm water management systems.
Businesses, municipalities, landowners, and states will realize multiple environmental and
financial benefits, including diversified revenue streams, by strategically modifying existing
expenditures for environmental management, and creating opportunities to develop appropriately
designed new markets for ecosystem services. This approach builds upon the Agency's historic
emphasis on minimizing the impacts of pollutants (i.e., negative externalities); it creates new
ways to enhance the services we receive from functioning ecosystems, in ways that create new
economic wealth and better address social equity (i.e., positive externalities). One of the goals of
this new balanced approach is to "create demand" for ecological integrity by rewarding
stewardship and by connecting with the public on issues of social well being and equity.
In FY 2011, the ESRP will provide research critical to improving the policy and management
decisions that affect the type, amount, quality and sustainability of benefits and services provided
by ecosystems. The systems-based approach will create ways to examine how a suite of
ecosystem services responds to multiple stressors, using both prospective scenario analyses as
well as monitoring frameworks to empirically assess changes in ecosystem services over time.
The ultimate goal for the ESRP is that decision makers routinely use information and methods
developed by this program to make proactive policy and management decisions that protect the
environment and human well being by conserving and enhancing ecosystem services at local,
regional, and national scales. To accomplish this, the ESRP will conduct research using several
complementary research themes:
• Defining ecosystem services and their implications for human well being and
economic valuation;
• Measuring, monitoring, and mapping ecosystem services at multiple scales over time;
• Developing predictive models for quantifying and forecasting the changes in
ecosystem services under alternative management scenarios; and
• Developing decision support tools that enable decision makers to integrate, visualize,
and maximize diverse data, so they can anticipate and understand the likely
consequences of management decisions on the sustainability of ecosystem services,
their economic and non-monetary value, and their role in maintaining human well
being.
161
-------
In addition, in FY 2011 the ESRP will examine ecosystem services from three distinct
perspectives:
• Pollutant-based: examining the effects of pollutants on ecosystem services; in this
case, reactive nitrogen, which has implications for several nationally important issues,
including upcoming rules for air emissions of NOx/Sox, and NAAQS; hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico; contribution to greenhouse gases; and management of non-point
pollution sources from agricultural and other lands.
• Ecosystem-based: examining how stressors affect the suite of ecosystem services
derived from wetlands and coral reefs, two important ecosystems for which the
Agency has regulatory responsibilities.
• Regional assessments at six locations: the Willamette River Basin, OR; Tampa Bay,
FL; the Coastal Carolinas; the upper Midwest U.S., an arid-land area in the Southwest
U.S., and the Chesapeake Bay. These regional studies are done in collaboration with
stakeholders and illustrate how local, state, and regional decision makers can use
alternative future scenarios to proactively conserve and enhance ecosystem services.
These study locations represent a spectrum of physiographic and socioeconomic
characteristics with a variety of drivers of ecosystem change operating at local,
regional, and national scales, as well as different types and magnitudes of potential
impacts resulting from resource management decisions.
There will be greatly expanded opportunities in FY 2011 to collaborate with non-traditional
partners within and outside of EPA because the ESRP incorporates both natural and social
sciences. The ESRP has already spurred significant advances in creating a unique, cross-
disciplinary, broadly applicable research program. In collaboration with Agency partners, the
ESRP has identified five immediate uses for information on ecosystem services:
• Provide technical support for agency policies, including voluntary measures such as
environmental stewardship;
• Provide improved techniques for estimating the benefits and costs related to national
rulemaking;
• Develop metrics on ecosystem services (e.g., for use in the Report on the
Environment);
• Create credible scientific foundations for market incentives (e.g., for ecosystem
services trading or for investments in conservation); and
• Identify the "art of the possible;" that is, to explore how policy makers and managers
can use this information to simultaneously address multiple environmental issues,
identify trade-offs, and reduce conflict in strategies to achieve desired environmental
outcomes.
The ESRP research also supports the EPA Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan and
Executive Order 12866 which require assessing the costs and benefits of alternative strategies for
environmental protection. As a result, the program will improve the scientific basis for
performing more comprehensive valuations of ecosystem services than is currently possible by
clarifying the economic, social and ecological ramifications of various management options.
162
-------
Exploratory Grants and Nanotechnology Research
EPA's Nanomaterials research program generates decision-support information to promote the
safe development, use, and disposal/recycling of products that contain engineered nanoscale
materials ("nanomaterials"). Based on analyses by EPA's Office of Research and Development
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as to which
nanomaterials are most likely to present near- to medium-term human and ecological exposure,
the EPA research program focuses on five types of nanomaterials: carbon tubes and fullerenes,
cerium oxide, iron, silver, and titanium dioxide. The FY 2011 nanotechnology budget request is
$20 million, including $3.7 million in the Land research program, $13.9 million in the Human
Health and Ecosystem research program, $2 million in the Fellowships program, and $0.23
million in both the Clean Air and Sustainability research programs.
Guided by EPA's Nanomaterial Research Strategy, the program utilizes in-house research and
the STAR grants program67 to examine nanomaterials from two interrelated perspectives: (1)
whether these materials present the potential for hazard or exposure over their life cycles, and (2)
how these materials, as used in products, may be modified or managed to avoid or mitigate
potential human health or ecological impacts. The program also is coordinated nationally as part
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,68 and internationally through the OECD's Working
Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials.69 EPA's Nanotechnology Research Program supports the
regulatory activities of the Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances program, as well as
remediation strategies developed by the Solid Waste and Emergency Response program and
implemented through EPA's Regional Offices.
In FY 2011, EPA's Nanomaterial research program will continue source-to-dose research
(releases/emissions; fate, transport, and transformation; and exposure) to identify which of the
five material types, in what forms, may become present in biological systems at concentrations
of potential concern. The program will investigate and evaluate approaches to detect, measure
and characterize nanomaterials in environmental media. Results expected from this research in
FY 2011 include reports on laser detection of nanomaterials, electrochemical detection methods,
and screening methods for metal-containing nanoparticles in water. The program also will
evaluate existing applications and new methods to understand behavior of nanomaterials in the
environment, with published reports including nanomaterial deposition on mineral and organic
surfaces. In FY 2011, EPA expects to release a report on observed toxicities and the possibility
of using existing test methods to predict toxicities in freshwater, marine and terrestrial systems.
The program will publish state-of-the-science reports for nanoscale silver and titanium dioxide.
Source-to-dose research will enable risk assessments that better reflect actual nanomaterial forms
and their concentrations in air, water, and soil; and how people or wildlife may be exposed to
them.
FY 2011 funding will continue support for green nanotechnology research to link exposure and
effects research with green chemistry and life-cycle assessment research. Research will identify
how nanomaterial properties may be modified or exposure controls implemented to minimize
For more information, see: http://www.epa. gov/ncer/nano/
68 For more information, see http://www.nano. gov/
69 For more information, see http://www.oecd.org/site/03407.en_21571361_41212117_l_l_l_l_LOO.html
163
-------
and manage the potential of risk from products containing nanomaterials and minimize inputs,
including energy usage, during the production of nanomaterials.
In 2011 EPA will develop a screening-level life cycle assessment for nanoscale silver and
strategies for eco-friendly synthesis of nanomaterials. The advancement of safer nanomaterial
production with a smaller environmental footprint, through green nanotechnology research, will
benefit both producers and consumers.
EPA also will continue to develop comprehensive environmental assessment and decision
analytic approaches to support long term as well as near to medium term needs for evaluating
potential impacts of nanomaterials, particularly in the absence of adequate information for
conventional risk assessment methodologies. A case study prioritizing research needed to
support a comprehensive environmental assessment of selected applications of nanoscale silver
will be released in FY 2011. Developing these new analytical approaches will enable decision
makers to make better decisions, sooner, with a broader appreciation for where in a
nanomaterial's life cycle there exists the greatest potential to avoid or manage risks.
Report on the Environment
In FY 2011, EPA will improve the utility of the Report on the Environment (ROE) by fine-
tuning indicators (revising, adding, deleting), integrating conceptual diagrams, and including
supplemental information to fill identified data gaps. EPA will also explore the feasibility of
adding energy and climate chapters. The ROE will continue to play a critical role in the
Agency's strategic planning activities as the Agency develops and implements more transparent
and outcome-oriented measures and indicators. This program is based on strong intra-agency and
interagency partnerships with active participation from EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices
to ensure that the ROE provides credible and defensible indicators that can best inform planning
and decision making at the Agency. The ROE has a steering committee of Agency senior
managers who provide guidance and feedback to the ROE.
EPA 's 2008 Report on the Environment was released in May 2008 as a scientific document that
presents the condition of and trends in the nation's environment and human health. The ROE
uses data from state and federal agencies for over half of the indicators (e.g. USD A, CDC, DOI).
EPA released an interactive public website (the "eROE") to provide greater transparency on how
EPA can improve its ability to assess the nation's environmental quality and human health, and
how EPA uses that knowledge to better manage measureable environmental results. The eROE is
updated quarterly with the most recent environmental indicator data and enhancements at
www.epa.gov/roe. The next complete revision and hard copy release of the ROE is planned for
FY2012.
Advanced Monitoring Initiative
In FY 2011, the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI) will work with EPA programs, offices,
and Regional Offices to bring the best monitoring data and modeling results to improve decisions
made by EPA and its partners. It will benefit fully from the interagency U.S. Group on Earth
Observations (USGEO) Initiative and support the international community through the "Global
Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS)," primarily as a user of data and information,
164
-------
through partnerships with Federal agencies. The GEOSS architecture integrates environmental
observation, monitoring, and measurements with modeling that directly support health, climate
change, air quality, and other social benefit areas. AMI will augment ongoing efforts on data
collection and management with an Agency wide effort to provide a "knowledge base," and the
tools to access and utilize it effectively.
In FY 2011, AMI will support EPA's three-to-five year cross-agency science priorities,
particularly in the areas of climate and energy, environmental contaminants, and modernization
of infrastructure. For each priority, the AMI initiative will focus primarily on the development
of decision support tools needed for implementation. EPA also will focus on environmental
technology project performance, which will be further strengthened through a rigorous quality
assurance and performance based management process.
In addition, to respond to U.S. environmental technology needs, EPA USGEO's approach is to
integrate environmental observation, monitoring, measurements, modeling, green technology
development, commercialization and verification of development, technology transfer and
applications of data, and information collected for decision making and tools. The GEOSS AMI
will support environmental technology activities and integrated multi-disciplinary research that
aligns with the Agency's science priorities.
Mercury Research
EPA has developed a multi-year plan for studying mercury, including its sources, control and
treatment, environmental fate and behavior, impacts on ecological resources, and potential
effects on human health. In FY 2011, the mercury program will discontinue research to evaluate
the transport of mercury from power plant stacks, including plume transport and ultimate
deposition (e.g. mercury "hot spots") analyses. This discontinuation will minimize the impact to
the highest priority work in the human health and ecosystems research program, such as
ecosystem services and children's health research. The program will release a report of mercury
"hot spots" research completed in previous fiscal years. In FY 2011, research to support
implementation of revised regulations to control mercury and co-pollutants from coal-fired
utility boilers and other combustion sources will be discontinued. Studies to develop or evaluate
the cost and performance of emissions control technologies capable of reducing mercury and co-
pollutants will be curtailed, resulting in more limited data for inclusion in planned products and
reports.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Ecological Research
publications rated as
highly-cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
21.4
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
E <\ta HI i <\1i pH
FY2011
Target
22.4
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Ecological research
FY 2009
Target
21.3
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
22.3
Units
Percent
165
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
publications in "high-
impact" journals.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
2010
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of public
health outcomes long-
term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic
data long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of aggregate
and cumulative risk
long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
susceptible
subpopulations long-
term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of human
health program
publications rated as
highly cited papers.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.5
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
The research conducted under these programs supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4.
Specifically, these programs identify and synthesize the best available scientific information,
models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions with a focus on
human, community, and ecosystem health.
166
-------
The programs gauge their annual and long term success by assessing progress on several key
measures. In FY 2011, the Human Health Research program plans to accomplish its goals of
completing and delivering 100 percent of its planned outputs. The program also is targeting
increases in the percentage of its peer reviewed risk assessments which are cited as supporting a
decision to either move away from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions, as was
encouraged in the 2005 BOSC review, and in determining the extent to which key research
products are cited in EPA decision documents. The program will conduct a retrospective
analysis over the last ten years, because it can take many years for the development of regulatory
documents. This can result in a long lag time between publication of research results and their
being cited by EPA.
In preparation for the FY 2007 mid-cycle and FY 2009 full BOSC reviews of the Human Health
program, advanced computer programs were used to search EPA dockets and determine the
extent to which scientific publications from this program were used in risk assessments, decision
and policy documents, and guidance reports by EPA and other government regulators.
Bibliometric analyses also were applied to measure the quality and stature of the journals in
which Human Health papers were published and the extent to which these papers were cited in
other scientific journals. Thus quantitative measures of both scientific quality and program
relevance were incorporated into the BOSC review process.
In FY 2011, the ESRP intends to meet 100 percent of its planned outputs in support of each long
term goal while increasing program efficiency. In addition, based on research previously
completed under this program, EPA plans to have forty-five states use a common monitoring
design and appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and
the effectiveness of programs and policies. In its ongoing efforts to improve the ecosystem
research program, EPA is engaging its BOSC to evaluate whether the Agency's research and
development programs are "doing the right research and doing it well."
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,254.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (+$800.0) This increase reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program to fund ECOTOX, which is a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. Various programs have
contributed to needed access and updates, and maintaining them.
• (+$500.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
167
-------
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity.
• (-$326.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and video conferencing.
• (+$576.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,787.0 \ -6.5 FTE) This decrease reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and
resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general
expenses to better align with programmatic priorities and includes a reduction of 6.5 FTE
and decreased associated payroll of-$877.0. The FTE reduction includes 5.0 FTE for the
Ecosystem Services STAR grants program. Realignments are based on FTE allocations
as well as scientific equipment needs.
• (-$1,000.0) This decrease reflects administrative savings in the Human Health and
Ecosystems program that are being reinvested in STAR fellowships.
• (-$2,435.0 \-3.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to the mercury research program and
includes a reduction of 3.1 FTE and decreased associated payroll of $418.0. The program
will discontinue research examining mercury "hot spots'" evaluating mercury emission
measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact of different coals and
technology configurations on coal combustion residues. The program will use data
already generated to produce final products and reports.
• (-$3,000.0) This reduction is the result of an increase included in the FY 2010
Appropriation providing an additional $3 million for children's environmental health
research in FY 2010, of which $2 million was directed to the new centers of excellence
on children's environmental health, with at least one of these centers to focus on child
care settings, and $1 million to accelerate research on the effects of environmental
chemicals and toxins on children. This increase is not included in the FY 2011 budget
request.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; ERDDA; CWA; FIFRA; FFDCA; RCRA; FQPA; TSCA; USGCRA.
168
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
169
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,696.8
$424.1
$382.8
$19,010.1
$31,513.8
141.4
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36,286.0
154.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,800.0
$457.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$34,015.0
150.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($311.0)
$112.0
$50.0
($2,122.0)
($2,271.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:
Research performed under the Land Research program supports scientifically defensible and
consistent decision making for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) material
management, corrective action, and emerging materials topics. EPA's Land Research program
provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect America's land and
supports the Administrator's priorities for assuring the safety of chemicals and cleaning up our
communities. Research under this program has been evolving from waste treatment to beneficial
reuse, avoidance of more toxic materials, and operation of waste management facilities to
conserve capacity and produce energy. Research addresses resource conservation and material
reuse issues, as well as the application of alternative landfill covers and the benefits of landfill
bioreactors. To address emerging material management issues, the program made a strategic
shift to focus on nanomaterial fate and transport and associated risk management issues.
Research efforts are guided by the Land Research Program Multi-Year Plan (MYP),70 developed
with input from across the Agency. The MYP outlines steps for meeting the needs of the
Research and Development program's clients and stakeholders and for evaluating progress
through annual performance goals and measures. Research under this program supports human
health risk and exposure assessments and methods, which are conducted under the Human
Health Risk Assessment program. The range of research programs and initiatives will both
continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human
health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such
as green chemistry and green engineering.
The Land Protection and Restoration research program has taken a number of steps to improve
effectiveness and demonstrate results. To enhance communication with customers, the program
has developed a Land Research program Web site71 that includes a description of the program;
70 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, B.C.: EPA. For more information,
see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-vearplans.htmtf land.
71 For more information, see www.epa.gov/landscience.
170
-------
fact sheets (science issues, research activities, and research impacts); research publications and
accomplishments; and links to tools and models. In addition, the program continues to leverage
external evaluations by a subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a
Federal advisory committee composed of independent, expert scientists and engineers. In their
most recent report to EPA in FY 2009, building on the full program evaluation in FY 2006, the
BOSC found that the Land program has an MYP that articulates research goals for meeting the
critical needs of the program. The BOSC also indicated that the Land Research program is
responsive to BOSC recommendations and "exceeds expectations" in achieving its program
goals.72
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, resources will continue to support research to address material management, land
reuse and revitalization issues, and emerging research topics. Under land reuse, the program
works with states to optimize operations and monitor several landfill bioreactors to determine
their potential to provide alternative energy in the form of landfill gas while increasing the
nation's landfill capacity. These bioreactors will contribute to resource conservation by
accelerating waste decomposition not only for preservation of disposal capacity, but more
importantly for methane capture and energy recovery. This research directly contributes to Land
Restoration long term goals and will aid states and facility owners in pursuing permits for
research and development of alternative options for disposal. The Agency works with the
Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to assist in the
communication of research results on landfill bioreactors to the states. Research will continue on
management options for construction and demolition debris including materials such as drywall.
The Land research program also will continue methamphetamine lab clean up studies in response
to the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act,73 which requires EPA to evaluate clean up
techniques and exposure risks. EPA will collaborate on methamphetamine lab clean up studies
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
As part of the Land Research program, EPA conducts integrated scientific studies that support
site-specific arsenic bioavailability and the development of in-vitro methods and speciation
methods. The bioavailability of metals in soils, sediments, and materials for reuse is an
important issue in reuse assessments, and research products will provide critical information to
support reuse risk assessments. Improving the bioavailability estimate may substantially reduce
the cost of soil remediation.
Research directly supporting regulation of coal combustion residues (CCR) management is a
high priority in FY 2011. Planned research products will continue to assess CCR leaching
potential to support risk assessments. Researchers will also continue to develop a decision
support tool for decision makers to evaluate management methods for coal ash for disposal or
beneficial reuse.
72 BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/landmc0901rpt.pdf.
73 For more information, see P.L. 110-143 at http://thomas.loc.gov/.
171
-------
Under EPA's nanomaterial research program, described in more detail in Research: Human
Health and Ecosystems, the Land Research program addresses the fate and transport research
theme. The FY 2011 nanotechnology budget request is $20 million, including $3.7 million in the
Land research program, $13.9 million in the Human Health and Ecosystem research program, $2
million in the Fellowships program, and $0.23 million in both the Air and Sustainability research
programs. The program's goal is to lead the Federal government in addressing key science
questions on the persistence and movement of nanomaterials in the environment. In FY 2011,
the program will:
• Publish research, begun in FY 2007, on the detection and measurement of nanomaterials.
This research will support investigation of environmental fate, transport and
characterization in the environment.
• Develop predictive tools to characterize nanomaterials in multiple media.
• Produce a report evaluating the properties of nanomaterials that affect fate, transport,
reactivity, and bioavailability.
• Publish a report on the state-of-the-science for sampling and measurement of
nanomaterials in environmental media.
• Utilize nanoscale materials to effect remediation of contaminants, notably the use of
zero-valent iron to degrade organic contaminants. This research is applicable to
contaminated sediment and ground water sites but in FY 2011 the program plans to
expand to explore other nanomaterials and contaminants in other media, such as air and
drinking water.
• Conduct research on greener synthesis of nanomaterials to provide industry with a model
for more benign manufacturing.
• Life cycle assessment and supporting research across media will improve our
understanding of where nanomaterials enter the environment, how they result in human
or ecological exposures, and identify where management techniques could be applied if
controls are necessary.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research.
Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred
environmental outcomes.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$10.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
172
-------
• (-$31.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$27.0 \ +0.5 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignment of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, including an increase of .5 FTE with
associated payroll of $68.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE
allocations as well as scientific equipment needs.
• (-$335.0 \ -2.0 FTE) This reflects a redirection of resources to Drinking Water research,
reflecting the natural evolution in research direction from groundwater remediation issues
to groundwater protection issues related to carbon sequestration. This reduction includes
2.0 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $270.0.
• (+$18.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; ERDDA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OPA; BRERA; MRRA.
173
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
174
-------
Research: Sustainability
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$19,445.7
$96.0
$19,541.7
64.7
FY2010
Enacted
$27,287.0
$73.0
$27,360.0
70.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$25,292.0
$0.0
$25,292.0
70.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,995.0)
($73.0)
($2,068.0)
-0.1
Program Project Description:
EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) Research program provides information
and tools for Agency program and Regional Offices as well as external stakeholders to promote
sustainable approaches to address environmental problems affecting health and the environment.
EPA's focus on and commitment to promoting sustainability-achieving economic prosperity
while protecting natural systems and quality of life for the long term-is rooted in the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990. The STS Research program provides the scientific foundation for the
Agency's advancement of Sustainability through systems research and integrated analysis of air,
water, and land resources, and of changes in traditional methods of producing and distributing
goods and services. Adoption of Sustainability concepts in environmental management will rely
heavily on scientific advances that provide technologies and decision tools to inform future risk
management decisions. As decision makers adopt these new sustainable approaches, they will
need appropriate metrics to measure the impacts of public and private actions in the context of
Sustainability. The range of research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of
better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well
as advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering.
In a 2007 review of the STS Research program, the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) concluded that the STS program had significantly responded to its recommendations
and that it "exceeds expectations" in achieving long term goals for the adoption of technology
and tools74. The BOSC suggested the STS program apply its tools and approaches to key
national issues. Subsequently, the STS program has focused a significant part of its efforts on
research aimed at sustainable biofuel production. In July 2009, the BOSC conducted an
evaluation and determined that the STS program "exceeds expectations with respect to progress
and responsiveness to the 2007 review." STS will continue implementing BOSC
recommendations.
4For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/osp^sc/pdf/sust0803rpt.pdf.
175
-------
The STS Research program provides scientific and technical support to regional and national
sustainability policies and initiatives. To this end, the STS program has established three areas
of emphasis:
• Sustainability Metrics: As sustainable solutions to environmental problems are developed
and implemented, the progress and impact of these efforts needs to be measured. STS
research in this area provides the underlying science needed to develop, apply, and
implement these metrics. The STS Research program focuses its efforts on developing
scientifically-based sustainability metrics and indices that will support understanding of
the implications of different technology and risk management pathways, evaluation of
regional ecosystem sustainability over time, and assessment of how various management
strategies can move a region towards sustainability.
• Decision Support Tools'15 This research creates tools, models, and methods that provide
information to decision makers on ways to evaluate, from a systems perspective,
environmental management issues in order to achieve sustainable outcomes. This
research is built on the foundation of life cycle and supply chain analysis techniques.
These techniques address the sustainability of alternative policy options, production
pathways, and product usage by describing the full environmental impact and
sustainability implications of each alternative. Such methods and techniques are applied
to consumer products, municipal solid waste management, biofuel production, chemical
production, and energy generation.
• Technologies: This research emphasizes the development and testing of technologies that
facilitate sustainable outcomes. An example of ongoing technical work is the
development and evaluation of a new membrane technology that can recover biofuel
from biomass streams at higher purity levels using 50 percent less energy and at lower
cost than current technology. An external collaborator, Membrane Technology &
Research, has further developed this technology and applied for two patents listing EPA
as co-inventor.76 Programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program and the People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design competition
emphasize finding solutions to client-driven problems while promoting sustainable
design and implementation practices that generate research outputs in the form of
innovative, inherently benign, integrated, and interdisciplinary designs that will advance
the scientific, technical, and policy knowledge necessary to further the goals of
sustainability.
The STS program promotes and supports national and regional sustainability policies and
initiatives. The program ensures that decision makers within EPA and at the local, regional, and
national levels have a sound set of scientific principles and management tools that promote
stewardship and sustainability outcomes.
75 For more information, see http://www. epa. gov/ord/NRMRL/std/sab .
76 For more information, see Section II - Page 184 of EPA's FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report at
http://www.epa.gov/cfo/par/2009par/par09 goal5.pdf.
176
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The STS program will continue development and implementation of systems metrics, which
represent the measurement of overall system function and health on a broad regional scale. In
partnership with the Forest Service and many state and local stakeholders in the San Luis Valley
of Colorado, the STS program worked in FY 2010 to develop four system-based sustainability
metrics (ecological and economic) to be used by environmental managers in supporting
sustainable outcomes. In FY 2011, the program will validate and apply these metrics. The
program also will begin research to apply sustainability metrics to management of regional
ecosystems in Puerto Rico. This study will enhance the robustness of the metrics effort by
applying the metrics to different types of regional ecosystems (e.g. more urban development and
industrial activity). Additionally, research will continue to develop tools and data that will be
used to evaluate the sustainability of different pathways to produce, distribute, and use biofuels.
In support of one of the Administrator's top priorities, assuring the safety of chemicals, the STS
program will initiate a new research effort in FY 2011 to mitigate human exposure and
environmental releases from the recycling and disposal of electronic waste. Through new design
methods, EPA will work with industry to promote changes to manufacturing and other processes,
such as refurbishing and recycling aiming to reduce adverse human health and environmental
impacts and decrease the volume of unwanted electronic devices. Lifecycle analyses of
electronic devices will develop tools and methods to assess the environmental impacts of the
production, use, and end-of-life management of electronic devices and electronic device
components.
As part of the Agency's Clean Energy and Climate Change initiative, the STS program will
continue to support the biofuels research initiative started in FY 2010 to help decision makers
better understand the risk tradeoffs associated with biofuels use and production. The STS
program is coordinating the preparation of EPA's Report to Congress, mandated under the
Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 (EISA) Section 204, on the current and anticipated
future environmental impacts due to expanded biofuel production in the U.S. Such assessments
are due every three years. The first report to Congress is due December 2010 and will be
followed by a research workshop in 2011. Research in support of EISA will examine proposed
feedstocks and assess their potential impacts on the environment, aiding the development of
approaches that provide for sustainable production of biofuels.
Research also will continue for other decision support tools, including efforts to further develop
a streamlined in-house life cycle assessment methodology and to incorporate material flow
concepts into existing tools. The STS program will continue work on a water use model and will
complete a model for assessing environment impact for land use. STS research will also
continue to evaluate an auction-based management approach to wet weather flow management in
urban watersheds using the Cincinnati and Cleveland metropolitan areas as case studies.
Finally, the STS program will maintain funding for the development of new innovative
technologies through the People, Prosperity and Planet (P3) program. This program advances
the development of environmental technology testing protocols and a global environmental
technology network, encourages innovation in environmental stewardship, and provides
educational opportunities in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
177
-------
In FY 2011, the STS Program will deliver several tools, models, guidance, and reports to inform
state and Federal regulatory decision makers. In order to evaluate the sustainability of biofuel
production, the STS program will expand the suite of environmental impact assessment models
to include sustainable land use. The program also will provide decision makers at the local level
with recommendations on the effectiveness of a small-parcel approach incorporating best
management practices for managing urban watersheds.
The STS program is taking steps to improve performance through the development of a revised
Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year Plan (MYP) by 2010, a key
recommendation from the BOSC. The STS program also continues to measure performance
through several annual output and long term outcome measures. The next BOSC review is
expected to occur in 2013.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal
that decision makers
adopt ORD-developed
decision support tools
and methodologies.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal
that decision makers
adopt innovative
technologies developed
or verified by ORD.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Science
and Technology for
Sustainability (STS)
publications in "high
impact" journals.
FY 2009
Target
35.3
FY 2009
Actual
35.4
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
36
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal
that decision makers
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
178
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
adopt ORD-identified
and developed metrics
to quantitatively assess
environmental systems
for sustainability.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Work under the STS Research program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 5.4: Enhance
Science and Research. The STS program measures and manages performance through the timely
completion of research milestones and the citation rates of research publications. In FY 2011,
the program plans to continue making progress toward its long term objective of providing
information and tools for Agency program and Regional Offices as well as external stakeholders
to promote sustainable approaches to address environmental problems affecting health and the
environment.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,000.0) This reflects a new research focus on design methods and management
strategies for electronic devices to mitigate human exposure and environmental releases
from the recycling and disposal of electronic waste. This research supports the Agency's
priority for assuring the safety of chemicals.
• (+$295.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$60.0 \ -0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects the net result of realignments of resources such
as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align
with programmatic priorities and includes a reduction of .1 FTE with decreased
associated payroll of $13.0. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE
allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's workforce
management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency
priorities.
• (-$47.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$3,183.0) This reflects an adjustment for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
Enacted funding levels for SBIR include the amount EPA is required to set aside for
contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
technologies. This adjustment is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in
the budget cycle, is redistributed to other research programs in the President's Budget
request. After the budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement
is known, the funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SDWA; SBA; SARA; TSCA; ERDDA; EISA.
179
-------
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
180
-------
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$28,200.0
$28,200.0
135.2
FY2010
Enacted
$27,347.0
$27,347.0
137.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$27,645.0
$27,645.0
136.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$298.0
$298.0
-1.1
Program Project Description:
The Pesticides and Toxics Research program conducts integrated multidisciplinary research to
provide the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect human health and the
environment against unreasonable risks from exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals. The
program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems, with a focus on pesticides and toxic chemicals. This research
complements work conducted under the Human Health and Ecosystem Research, the Human
Health Risk Assessment, and the Endocrine Disrupters Research programs and supports the
Administrator's priorities for assuring the safety of chemicals. The range of research programs
and initiatives will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our
environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions
through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
Research to develop and validate methods and models and assessments for predicting risks from
pesticides and toxic substances is conducted under the Pesticides and Toxics research program.
EPA's Pesticides and Toxics Research program provides the scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions to protect against unreasonable risk from exposure to toxics and pesticides.
Research is guided by the Biotechnology Research Strategy77 and the Wildlife Research
Strategy,78 which were developed with broad participation from major clients and stakeholders
(e.g. EPA's Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program and Regional Offices). The
strategies outline the Agency's research needs and priorities. The Safe Pesticides/Safe Products
(SP2) multi-year plan (MYP)79 outlines specific steps for meeting these needs, as well as annual
performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.
77 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Biotechnology Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/biotechnology research program 4 8 05.pdf.
78 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Wildlife Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. A a:iaU1p „+.
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/wildlife research strategy 2 2 05.pdf.
79 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2006). Available
at: http://epa.gov/ord/npd/pdfs/SP2+MYP+120106fmal.pdf.
181
-------
The program primarily focuses on developing methods, models, and data for use in decisions by
EPA's Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program and other organizations. The
research program has three major goals:
• Provide predictive tools to prioritize testing requirements; enhance interpretation
of data to improve human health and ecological risk assessments; and inform risk
management decision-making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic
substances;
• Develop probabilistic risk assessment methods and models to better protect
natural populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants; and
• Provide the tools necessary to make risk management decisions related to
products of biotechnology. However, in FY 2010 and FY 2011, the program will
phase out biotechnology work.
In February 2007, the Pesticides and Toxics research program underwent an external peer review
by EPA's research advisory committee, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which
commended the progress and direction of the research and provided recommendations for
improvement.80 The BOSC stated that "SP2 [Safe Pesticides and Safe Products] is a very
successful program. The research is of high quality and is focused on well-articulated goals. Its
relevance to the Agency's mission is clear and apparent, and the SP2 program fills a unique
niche within the Agency, and serves the needs of OPPTS, its major client, very well." The
BOSC also noted that, "the scientists involved in these projects are internationally recognized
and their findings and organized panels serve to establish regulatory guidance around the world."
EPA and its external reviewers, including the EPA Science Advisory Board and National
Science Foundation, have recognized that a statute-specific research approach is limited in its
potential for solving modern environmental problems. While the Pesticides and Toxics research
program and Human Health research program have both made many important contributions to
EPA decision-making and have worked to integrate various disciplines throughout the programs,
these external reviews have noted that EPA could benefit by building upon important synergies
and emerging tools to address evolving environmental problems. Therefore, moving in that
direction, portions of the Pesticides and Toxics research program are being integrated with
related aspects of the Human Health research program. The result is a more holistic research
program that maximizes responsiveness to the rapidly changing needs of EPA's program and
Regional Offices and other critical partners. In mid-2010, the BOSC will review the progress of
the SP2 research program in implementing the BOSC's previous recommendations.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the resources for Pesticides and Toxics research will continue to support the
scientific foundation for addressing risks from human and wildlife exposure to pesticides and
toxic chemicals. EPA will provide research on methods, models, and data to support
prioritization of testing requirements, enhanced interpretation of data to improve human health
80 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, SP2 Research Program Review. Washington, D.C. (2007). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/sp2070723rpt.pdf
182
-------
and ecological risk assessments, and decision-making regarding specific individual or classes of
pesticides and toxic substances that are of high priority.
This research will continue to focus on:
• Developing proteomic, metabolomic, and transcriptomic biomarkers and other
approaches for assessing toxicity in fish;
• Developing alternative test methods for the hazard identification of potential human
developmental neurotoxicants;
• Developing a database of metabolic maps for use in prioritization and chemical risk
assessment;
• Characterizing the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of certain perfluorinated
chemicals (PFCs); and
• Developing sampling and analytical methods and evaluating the fate and transport
of certain PFCs in soil and wastewater.
Research conducted in FY 2011 also will support the development of probabilistic risk
assessments to protect natural populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants.
This research directly supports Agency efforts to assure that endangered species are protected
from pesticides while making sure farmers and communities have the pest control tools they
need. Four key components of this research are:
• Extrapolation among wildlife species and exposure scenarios of concern;
• Population biology to improve population dynamics in spatially-explicit habitats;
for example, developing tools to characterize fate and transport through wastewater
treatment plants of certain pharmaceuticals and their impact on aquatic organisms;
• Models for assessing the relative risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors; and
• Models to define geographical regional/spatial scales for risk assessment.
The program will develop methods for characterizing population-level risks of toxic substances
to aquatic life and wildlife. Results of this research will help the Agency meet the long term goal
of developing scientifically valid approaches for assessing spatially-explicit, population-level
risks to wildlife populations and non-target plants and plant communities from pesticides, toxic
chemicals and multiple stressors while advancing the development of probabilistic risk
assessment. This supports the Agency's obligations under the Endangered Species Act to ensure
that regulated use of pesticides will not harm listed species or their critical habitat.
Researchers in the Pesticides and Toxics and Human Health research programs will work
together on integrated, goal-oriented issues, and will plan and execute work to develop high
capacity decision support tools for managing contaminants across their life-cycles. The program
will provide partners with a more efficient means of assessing exposure and hazards of
chemicals. Partners will be able to efficiently evaluate the impact of large numbers of chemicals
in everyday commerce on human health (individual and susceptible populations) facilitating
prioritization for further chemical research, management, and product design decisions.
In coordination with the Endocrine Disrupters research program, portions of the Pesticides and
Toxics research program will be aligned with portions of the Human Health research program to
183
-------
focus on high-priority problems affecting management of contaminants. This base shift will
improve our ability to develop tools that improve chemical management, one of EPA's top
priorities.
The Pesticides and Toxics Research program continues to implement key improvement steps.
The program developed a formal response to the BOSC report and is addressing action items and
making progress toward long-term and annual targets.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
program's long-term
goal two.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of SP2
publications in "high
impact" journals.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
37.2
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of SP2
publications rated as
highly cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
24.2
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
program's long-term
goal three.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
program's long-term
goal one.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
184
-------
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on pesticides and toxic chemicals. A key focus for FY
2011 will be to develop the scientific underpinning related to the effects, exposures, and risk
management of specific individual or classes of pesticides and toxic substances that are of high
priority to the Agency in order to inform risk assessment/management decisions.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,251.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$510.0 \ +2.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for research to address exposure issues
related to potential chemical and/or pesticide stressors and realignment of FTE to better
reflect the programs they support and includes 2.0 FTE with associated payroll of $258.1.
This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency
better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$287.0 \ -2.2 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes a reduction of 2.2 FTE with
decreased associated payroll of $283.9. Realignments of these resources are based on
FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills
and Agency priorities.
• (+$16.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$50.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$1,142.0 \ -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction to research supporting the development
of scientific tools for biotechnology and includes a reduction of .9 FTE with decreased
associated payroll of $116.2. The program will reduce research into refining the use of
remote sensing as a tool for the management of insect resistance in genetically modified
crops, also known as Plant Incorporated Pesticides (PIP) crops. The program has
completed research on decision support systems to identify insect infestations that would
indicate the development of insect resistance.
Statutory Authority:
FQPA; FIFRA; TSCA; CWA; CAA; ERDDA.
185
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
186
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$98,250.4
$3,359.7
$101,610.1
565.9
FY2010
Enacted
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$105,328.0
$3,827.0
$109,155.0
589.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,104.0
$190.0
$3,294.0
-0.3
Program Project Description:
This program provides technical support to drinking water programs through the Technical
Support Center (TSC), which evaluates engineering and scientific data (including treatment
technology information) to establish its applicability to the drinking water program's needs. The
Center also:
• Develops and implements regulations to support national occurrence surveys and assists
in the assessment of the contaminant occurrence data resulting from those surveys;
• Develops and evaluates monitoring approaches and analytical methods, including
assessing data provided by others to demonstrate the effectiveness of new/alternate
analytical methods;
• Trains Regional and State Certification Officers and develops guidelines for the drinking
water laboratory certification program;
• Works with Regional Offices and states to help drinking water utilities better understand
their treatment and distribution systems and implement improvements to optimize
performance; and
• Provides other technical support to develop and implement National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWRs). The Center also provides external technical assistance in
support of EPA Regional and state drinking water programs.81
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the drinking water technical support program will:
81 For additional program information see
http://www.epa.gov/safewater
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=63cecb6866ee587d2bfafc7b77c3563c&cck=l&au=&ck
187
-------
• Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of
drinking water regulations. This includes the development of methods for updating rules
and implementing the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), and
responding to technical implementation questions regarding the entire range of
NPDWRs;
• Continue to implement EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program. This
program sets standards and establishes methods for EPA, state, and privately-owned
laboratories that analyze drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA also will
conduct three Regional program reviews during FY 2011. TSC visits each Regional
Office on a triennial basis and evaluates their oversight of the state laboratories and the
state laboratory certification programs within their purview;
• Support small drinking water systems' efforts to optimize their treatment technology
under the drinking water treatment Area Wide Optimization Program (AWOP). AWOP
is a highly successful technical assistance and training program that enhances the ability
of small systems to meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and disinfection
byproducts standards. By FY 2011, EPA will have worked with four Regional offices
and 24 states to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using the performance-based
training approach targeted towards optimizing key groundwater system and distribution
system integrity. The performance-based training brings together a group of public water
supply operators from different localities for a series of sessions where they learn key
operational and problem solving skills. Each skill is needed to enable operators to
address the factors limiting optimized performance of their plant;
• Continue the review, validation and analysis of data from the second round of
contaminant monitoring conducted under the UCMR. The monitoring period for UCMR2
is January 2008 to December 2010. These monitoring results, used in concert with health
effects information and other occurrence data, contribute significantly to the regulatory
determination process. UCMR2 data reporting by public water systems will continue
through mid-FY 2011. In addition, in FY 2011, EPA will propose the third round of
unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCMR3) and review the comments received on the
proposed UCMR3 as the agency prepares the final UCMR3 for publication in FY 2012.
Key activities for EPA include management of all aspects of small-system monitoring,
oversight of approved laboratories, troubleshooting and technical assistance, and review
and validation of data. EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SOWA), as amended, to annually set-aside $2 million of State Revolving Funds to
pay the costs of small system monitoring and sample analysis for contaminants for each
cycle of the UCMR;
• Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national collaborative effort between the water
industry and EPA to pursue optimization of the drinking water treatment infrastructure to
maximize public health protection; and
• Provide analytical method development/validation to enable implementation of the
nation's drinking water compliance-monitoring and occurrence data gathering.
188
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
89.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches including
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
92.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
91
Units
Perrent
-1 ^'Iv'^'llL
Population
* Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA
funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$190.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
189
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Environmental Programs and Management
Resource Summary Table 193
Program Projects in EPM 193
Tribal - Capacity Building 199
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 202
Federal Stationary Source Regulations 203
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 205
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 214
Radiation: Protection 215
Radiation: Response Preparedness 218
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs 221
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund 225
Program Area: Brownfields 227
Brownfields 228
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 231
Climate Protection Program 232
Program Area: Compliance 239
Compliance Assistance and Centers 240
Program Project Description: 240
Compliance Incentives 242
Program Project Description: 242
Compliance Monitoring 244
Program Area: Enforcement 251
Civil Enforcement 252
Criminal Enforcement 257
Enforcement Training 260
Environmental Justice 262
NEPA Implementation 265
Program Area: Geographic Programs 267
Great Lakes Restoration 268
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay 285
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay 293
Geographic Program: Puget Sound 296
Geographic Program: South Florida 299
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin 302
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound 304
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico 307
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain 311
Geographic Program: Other 314
Program Area: Homeland Security 318
Homeland Security: Communication and Information 319
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 321
190
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 324
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 326
Program Area: Indoor Air 328
Indoor Air: Radon Program 329
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 332
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 335
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination 336
Environmental Education 339
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 341
Exchange Network 345
Small Business Ombudsman 350
Small Minority Business Assistance 353
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness 355
TRI / Right to Know 358
Tribal - Capacity Building 361
Program Area: International Programs 365
US Mexico Border 366
International Sources of Pollution 369
Trade and Governance 373
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 378
Information Security 379
IT / Data Management 381
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 387
Administrative Law 388
Alternative Dispute Resolution 390
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance 392
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 395
Legal Advice: Support Program 397
Regional Science and Technology 399
Regulatory Innovation 402
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis 408
Science Advisory Board 412
Program Area: Operations and Administration 414
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 415
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 418
Acquisition Management 420
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 423
Human Resources Management 425
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 427
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 428
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 433
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 438
Science Policy and Biotechnology 442
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 444
RCRA: Waste Management 445
RCRA: Corrective Action 450
191
-------
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling 453
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention 459
Endocrine Disrupters 460
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction 463
Pollution Prevention Program 471
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management 479
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program 483
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 490
LUST/UST 491
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems 494
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways 495
Wetlands 500
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 504
Beach / Fish Programs 505
Drinking Water Programs 509
Program Area: Water Quality Protection 518
Marine Pollution 519
Surface Water Protection 524
192
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Dollars
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,405,796.7
$12,463.2
$2,418,259.9
10,565.8
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,993,779.0
$2,993,779.0
10,925.3
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,891,036.0
$2,891,036.0
11,066.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($102,743.0)
($102,743.0)
141.2
Bill Language: Environmental Programs and Management
For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses, not otherwise
provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library
memberships in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price
to members lower than to subscribers who are not members; administrative costs of the
brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act of 2002; and not to exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
[$2,993,779,000] $2,889,536,000, to remain available until September 30, [2011] 2012[:
Provided, That of the funds included under this heading, not less than $608,441,000 shall be for
the Geographic Programs specified in the explanatory statement accompanying this
Act]. (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)
Program Projects in EPM
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Clean Diesel Initiative
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
FY 2009
Actuals
$20,336.2
$29,494.5
$238.1
$93,462.6
$93,700.7
$24,168.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$20,791.0
$27,158.0
$0.0
$99,619.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$21,178.0
$34,991.0
$0.0
$134,634.0
$134,634.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$387.0
$7,833.0
$0.0
$35,015.0
$35,015.0
($24,446.0)
193
-------
Program Project
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Brownfields
Brownfields
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry
Climate Protection Program (other
activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Programs
Great Lakes Restoration
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,962.0
$2,672.6
$5,961.8
$9,697.0
$195,992.8
$23,793.1
$39,085.5
$3,847.3
$5,163.1
$49,089.8
$97,185.7
$97,185.7
$24,996.0
$8,710.0
$98,457.1
$132,163.1
$138,113.2
$45,527.6
$3,110.6
$5,460.3
$15,249.8
$207,461.5
$4,983.5
$0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$202,160.0
$24,152.0
$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$113,044.0
$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
$134,582.0
$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0
$16,950.0
$475,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$11,439.0
$3,088.0
$5,711.0
$9,865.0
$220,906.0
$27,397.0
$55,475.0
$4,591.0
$20,750.0
$42,234.0
$123,050.0
$123,050.0
$0.0
$0.0
$110,467.0
$110,467.0
$187,755.0
$51,312.0
$0.0
$7,317.0
$18,524.0
$264,908.0
$0.0
$300,000.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$144.0
$11.0
($223.0)
$25.0
$18,746.0
$3,245.0
$2,869.0
$22.0
$4,065.0
$3,050.0
$10,006.0
$10,006.0
($25,622.0)
($9,560.0)
$11,067.0
($24,115.0)
$41,119.0
$1,675.0
($3,278.0)
$227.0
$266.0
$40,009.0
($16,950.0)
($175,000.0)
194
-------
Program Project
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Geographic Program: South Florida
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
Geographic Program: Other (other
activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
FY 2009
Actuals
$26,317.8
$22,026.9
$4,922.0
$11,256.6
$2,279.6
$0.0
$3,072.9
$4,837.5
$3,147.5
$970.0
$2,842.1
$1,411.1
$5,223.2
$32.5
$83,116.5
$6,983.0
$122.6
$6,714.6
$6,837.2
$1,194.1
$1,860.0
$3,054.1
$6,648.8
$23,523.1
$5,347.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$0.0
$608,441.0
$6,926.0
$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0
$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
$23,554.0
$5,866.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$62,957.0
$0.0
$5,000.0
$20,000.0
$2,148.0
$12,400.0
$3,000.0
$4,515.0
$1,434.0
$978.0
$2,448.0
$1,261.0
$4,687.0
$0.0
$416,141.0
$4,324.0
$0.0
$2,415.0
$2,415.0
$2,012.0
$0.0
$2,012.0
$6,391.0
$15,142.0
$5,615.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,957.0
$0.0
($2,000.0)
($30,000.0)
($20.0)
$12,400.0
($4,000.0)
($1,485.0)
($2,566.0)
($522.0)
$0.0
($2,064.0)
($2,586.0)
$0.0
($192,300.0)
($2,602.0)
($99.0)
($4,322.0)
($4,421.0)
($1,411.0)
$0.0
($1,411.0)
$22.0
($8,412.0)
($251.0)
195
-------
Program Project
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Environmental Education
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
Small Business Ombudsman
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
TRI / Right to Know
Tribal - Capacity Building
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
International Programs
US Mexico Border
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,335.2
$29,682.3
$6,832.4
$8,762.9
$48,743.0
$17,440.8
$2,623.3
$2,319.6
$12,152.1
$15,409.5
$13,174.7
$127,458.3
$5,621.8
$396.4
$371.1
$1,072.1
$94.9
$6,836.1
$5,413.2
$19,805.6
$4,565.3
$90,809.5
$95,374.8
$4,584.8
$1,280.5
$11,898.0
$41,917.2
$14,236.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$20,759.0
$26,625.0
$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0
$4,969.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0
$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0
$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$22,156.0
$27,771.0
$10,159.0
$6,448.0
$57,473.0
$18,702.0
$3,040.0
$2,358.0
$13,529.0
$16,494.0
$15,005.0
$143,208.0
$4,979.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,759.0
$6,202.0
$19,940.0
$7,030.0
$98,060.0
$105,090.0
$5,332.0
$1,390.0
$12,366.0
$44,002.0
$15,735.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,397.0
$1,146.0
$3,059.0
($2,590.0)
$5,529.0
$1,678.0
$12.0
$8.0
$226.0
$1,561.0
$2,925.0
$12,408.0
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$131.0
($25.0)
$116.0
$1,118.0
$650.0
$1,768.0
$57.0
$243.0
$142.0
$1,340.0
$1,316.0
196
-------
Program Project
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Science Advisory Board
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Acquisition Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide
Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide
Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,311.4
$21,827.7
$17,677.1
$5,052.1
$121,785.5
$155,471.0
$6,585.1
$24,545.2
$116,343.3
$302,944.6
$89,875.3
$31,332.7
$26,422.9
$43,373.2
$493,948.7
$60,952.3
$42,531.0
$12,772.7
$2,084.4
$118,340.4
$67,198.4
$38,451.0
$13,680.9
$119,330.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0
$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$498,410.0
$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$3,283.0
$19,828.0
$22,640.0
$5,902.0
$130,478.0
$169,915.0
$13,409.0
$30,901.0
$115,606.0
$329,831.0
$86,039.0
$33,934.0
$26,466.0
$44,842.0
$521,112.0
$64,666.0
$43,031.0
$14,156.0
$1,850.0
$123,703.0
$67,911.0
$40,003.0
$14,822.0
$122,736.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$12.0
$911.0
$3,236.0
($376.0)
$6,881.0
$12,875.0
($105.0)
$2,904.0
($1,081.0)
$14,593.0
$3,205.0
$1,530.0
$979.0
$2,395.0
$22,702.0
$1,722.0
$828.0
$1,011.0
$10.0
$3,571.0
($931.0)
($26.0)
$443.0
($514.0)
197
-------
Program Project
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
HPV/VCCEP
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction (other activities)
Subtotal, Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
Recovery Act Resources
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$10,937.0
$10.0
$48,259.9
$48,269.9
$19,958.8
$6,802.7
$14,260.7
$100,229.1
$13,581.6
$32,782.7
$27,082.7
$23,124.1
$82,989.5
$3,102.2
$98,250.4
$101,352.6
$13,064.7
$200,635.0
$200,635.0
$213,699.7
$12,463.2
$2,418,260.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$8,625.0
$0.0
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
$101,915.0
$12,424.0
$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0
$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0
$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0
$2,993,779.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$8,601.0
$0.0
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
$15,419.0
$6,260.0
$14,413.0
$100,513.0
$14,647.0
$0.0
$27,233.0
$28,231.0
$55,464.0
$2,974.0
$105,328.0
$108,302.0
$13,590.0
$226,471.0
$226,471.0
$240,061.0
$2,891,036.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($24.0)
$0.0
$934.0
$934.0
($2,631.0)
$235.0
$84.0
($1,402.0)
$2,223.0
$0.0
($5,334.0)
$2,291.0
($3,043.0)
$30.0
$3,104.0
$3,134.0
$193.0
$17,845.0
$17,845.0
$18,038.0
($102,743.0)
198
-------
Tribal - Capacity Building
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,174.7
$13,174.7
83.8
FY2010
Enacted
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
73.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,005.0
$15,005.0
88.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,925.0
$2,925.0
15.0
Program Project Description:
The Acid Rain program, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
requires major reductions in sulfur dioxide (802) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from the
U.S. electric power generation industry. The program continues to be recognized as a model for
flexible and effective air pollution regulation, both in this country and abroad. The 862 program
uses a market-based approach with tradable units called "allowances" (one allowance authorizes
the emission of one ton of SC>2 in a given or later year). The authorizing legislation sets a
permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted annually by affected electric
generation units (EGUs) in the contiguous U.S. The program is phased in, with the final 862 cap
beginning in 2010 set at 8.95 million tons, a level at approximately one-half the amount these
sources emitted in 1980. Both the SC>2 and NOX program components require accurate and
verifiable measurement of emissions.
The program also is responsible for implementing U.S. commitments under the US-Canada Air
Quality Agreement of 1991 to reduce and maintain lower SC>2 and NOX emissions. EPA's Acid
Rain program provides affected sources flexibility to select their own methods of compliance so
the required emission reductions are achieved at the lowest cost (both to industry and
government). For additional information on the Acid Rain program, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/.
In 2008, total SC>2 emissions from 3,572 affected EGUs were 7.6 million tons, already below the
statutory annual permanent cap.1 Despite this significant achievement, EPA health studies and
ecological assessments, analyses by the Interagency National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP),2 and data from long-term monitoring networks all indicate that further
reductions in 862 and NOX emissions, beyond those specified in Title IV, are necessary to allow
sensitive forests and aquatic ecosystems to recover from acidification. The program's
environmental objective to improve affected ecosystems cannot be attained without more
reductions in SO2 and NOX, the key pollutants involved in the formation of acid rain. These
1 US EPA, Acid Rain and Related Programs: 2008 Emission, Compliance, and Market Analysis, September 2009
(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkwts/progress/ARP_2008_ECM_Analvses.pdf). Page 2.
2 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. 2005.
www.napap.noaa.gov/reports. Pages 65-73.
199
-------
assessments also show that significant additional reductions in these emissions are needed for
many areas in the U.S. to achieve and maintain health-based protective air quality standards for
fine particulate matter (PM^.s) and ozone.
At the request of the states, EPA has administered the NOX Budget Program (NBP), a Regional
cap-and-trade program for reducing NOX emissions and transported ozone in the eastern U.S., for
over a decade. The NBP was established initially in the late 1990s, under a Memorandum of
Understanding among nine states and D.C., in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
These states recognized the efficiencies and economies of scale associated with centrally-
administered systems for allowance trading, emissions reporting, and true-up/compliance
determination, so they sought EPA's expertise to establish and operate these systems for their
market-based program. The NBP expanded under the NOX State Implementation Plan (SIP) call
in 2003 and 2004 to add 1 1 states from the Midwest and Southeast and double the number of
affected sources. One more state was added pursuant to the NOx SIP call in 2007. Affected
sources include boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units from a diverse set of industries as
well as utility EGUs.
In 2008, total NOX emissions, during the summer ozone season, from 2,568 NBP units were
481,420 tons—or 62 percent below 2000 levels, 75 percent below 1990 levels, and 9 percent
below the 2008 cap (i.e., sum of the state budgets for the program).3 The volume of emissions
data processed by EPA has increased almost 300% over the program in 2000, as has the number
of end-of-season reconciliations of unit emissions against allowances held. In FY 2009, the NBP
transitioned to the CAIR NOX ozone season program. As part of this process, EPA transferred
NBP banked allowances and some previously unallocated allowances held by states to
corresponding CAIR accounts. Also, in 2009, approximately 600 units in six additional states,
which were not subject to NBP, reported emissions data for compliance with the CAIR NOX
ozone season program and participated in the EPA-administered regional allowance trading
program. For additional information on the NBP and CAIR NOX ozone season program, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress-reports.html.
Both the Academy of Sciences and OMB have commended EPA on Acid Rain's accountability
program, which relies on the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) for monitoring
deposition, ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations, and other air quality indicators.
The Acid Rain accountability program issues comprehensive annual reports on compliance and
environmental results from implementation of the Acid Rain and NOX Budget trading programs.
These reports track progress in not only reducing SO2 and NOX emissions from the affected
sources, but also assess the impacts of these reductions on acid deposition, air quality (e.g.,
ozone levels), surface water acidity, forest health, and other environmental indicators.
Additional information on the program's annual reports are at:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports/.
3 US EPA, The NOxBudget Trading Program: 2000 Emission, Compliance, and Market Data. May 2009.
www.epa.gov/ainnarkets/progress/nbp08.html. Page 1.
200
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011; through the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, EPA is projected to measure,
quality assure, and track emissions for SC>2 and/or NOX from Continuous Emissions Monitoring
systems (CEMs) or equivalent direct measurement methods at over 4,600 EGUs and 300
industrial units. In addition, the program will conduct audits and certify emission monitors.
Pursuant to Title IV provisions, the program will continue to track and report annual carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions and heat input for approximately 3,500 electric utility units in the Acid
Rain program. Through the SC>2 Allowance Tracking System and NOX Ozone-Season
Allowance Tracking System, allowance transfers are recorded and reconciled against emissions
for all affected sources to ensure compliance. EPA will assist sources in the six new states
(Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin) in the NOX ozone season
program and new sources in all states with program implementation, especially with activities
related to allowance trading, monitor certification, and emissions reporting, and seasonal or
annual reconciliation of emissions with allowances.
Reducing emissions of SC>2 and NOX continues to be a crucial component of EPA's strategy for
cleaner air. Particulate matter can be formed from direct sources (such as diesel exhaust or
smoke), but also can be formed through chemical reactions in the air. Emissions of SO2 and NOX
can be chemically transformed into sulfates and nitrates ("acid rain particulate"), which are very
tiny particles that can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles. When inhaled, these fine particles
can cause serious respiratory problems, particularly for individuals who suffer from asthma or
are in sensitive populations. Numerous studies have even linked these exposures with premature
mortality from heart and lung diseases. These same small particles are also a main pollutant that
impairs visibility across large areas of the country, particularly damaging in national parks
known for their scenic views.
Nitrogen dioxide emissions also contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone.
Ozone, when inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause serious respiratory problems.
Achieving and maintaining EPA's national air quality standards is an important step towards
ensuring the air is safe to breathe. EPA, states, tribes, and local governments work as partners
toward this goal.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric
power generation
sources
FY 2009
Target
8,000,000
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
8,450,000
FY2011
Target
8,450,000
Units
Tons
Reduced
EPA tracks the change in nitrogen deposition and sulfur deposition to assess the effectiveness of
the Acid Rain program with performance targets set for every three years.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$387.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority: CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
201
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
202
-------
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$29,494.5
$29,494.5
122.2
FY2010
Enacted
$27,158.0
$27,158.0
105.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$34,991.0
$34,991.0
120.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$7,833.0
$7,833.0
15.0
Program Project Description:
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and for setting emission standards for
sources of these "criteria" pollutants and air toxics. These national standards form the
foundation for air quality management and establish goals that protect public health and the
environment.
The CAA established two types of NAAQS: primary standards set limits to protect public
health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly;
and secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against
decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has
established NAAQS for six of the most pervasive air pollutants: particulate matter (PM), ozone,
sulfur dioxide (862), nitrogen dioxide (NC^), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead. EPA is currently
working on a multi-pollutant secondary NAAQS review for NOx/SOx.
This program also includes activities directed toward reducing air emissions of toxic pollutants
from stationary sources. Specifically, this program provides for the development of control
technology-based standards for major sources (i.e., Maximum Achievable Control Technology -
MACT standards) and area sources, the development of standards of performance and emissions
guidelines for waste combustion sources, the assessment and regulation of residual risk
remaining after implementation of the control technology-based standards, the periodic review
and revision of the control technology-based standards, implementation of the Urban Air Toxics
strategy, and associated national guidance and outreach. The program also includes issuing,
reviewing, and periodically revising, as necessary, new source performance standards (NSPS) for
criteria and certain listed pollutants, standards to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from consumer and commercial products, and establishing Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) through issuance and periodic review and revision of control technique
guidelines.
203
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue reviewing criteria pollutants in accordance with an aggressive multi-year
schedule. The Agency has recently accelerated the schedule for completing NAAQS reviews in
order to meet the five-year deadline in the CAA for reviewing the standards for each pollutant.
Conducting seven concurrent reviews, under this aggressive schedule, requires substantial
investment in highly trained staff and the allocation of significant analytical resources toward the
NAAQS review process. Each review involves extensive scientific peer review by EPA scientific
and technical experts, the design and conduct of complex risk and exposure analyses, a complete
policy assessment, and consultation with external scientific experts at each stage of the review
process.
Currently, work is underway to achieve and maintain compliance with the 1978 1-hour ozone
standard, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the 1997 PMi0 and
PM2.5 standards, the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the 2009 lead standard, the 1971 NO2 standard, the
1971 CO standard, and the 1971 SO2 standards. In addition, planning has begun for
implementation requirements relating to revisions to other NAAQS under review, such as NO2
and SO2. EPA also is responding to the Court remand of the 2006 PM standards and EPA
proposed tighter ozone standards in January 2010 after reconsidering the March 2008 ozone
standards.
EPA will continue to pursue opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for stationary
sources in more integrated ways. For example, where the CAA requires that the Agency take
multiple regulatory actions that affect the same industry, the Agency will consider aligning the
timing of these rulemaking actions to take advantage of synergies between the multiple rules,
where feasible. Coordinating such actions allows the Agency to meet multiple CAA objectives
for controlling both criteria and hazardous air pollutants that can result in greater environmental
benefits, helps the Agency realize efficiencies in rule development, and offers opportunities to
streamline industry's regulatory requirements. Resources will be devoted to fulfilling our legal
and statutory deadline obligations to complete the Area Source program, to revise certain MACT
and waste incineration standards, to issue residual risk and technology review standards for
MACT categories, to review and revise New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and to
issue control technique guidelines for control of VOCs.
As part of the Agency's efforts to meet the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge and in response
to pending legal obligations, EPA requests increased resources to assess and potentially develop
NSPS consistent with the requirements of section 111 of the Clean Air Act. These efforts will be
complementary to any energy and climate legislation. Using emission inventory data, EPA will
identify six to eight source categories where emission control is feasible within a reasonable
timeframe, where significant emission reductions could be achieved cost-effectively,where
previous regulatory work for non-greenhouse gases has led to the development of considerable
background information and industry understanding, and where the Agency is required to
undertake activities for other regulated pollutants.
Under this effort, the EPA will undertake numerous analyses to understand approaches for
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. Analyses will include
204
-------
developing emission estimates, evaluating costs of control, and to the extent possible,
quantifying economic, environmental, and energy impacts. EPA anticipates approaching the
analyses within a multi-pollutant framework in order to help the Agency identify the most cost-
effective options for each industrial sector evaluated
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
non-cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2009
Target
59
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2011
FY 2010
Target
59
FY2011
Target
59
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2009
Target
36
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2011
FY 2010
Target
36
FY2011
Target
35
Units
Percent
The performance target for projected reduction of air toxics emissions for FY 2011 is slightly
lower than FY 2010 because area source emissions (which are based on population projections)
are expected to grow. The Air Toxics Program continues to achieve gross emission reductions,
but growth projections are higher, resulting in a net effect of higher overall projected emissions.
These projections were estimated before the 2009 recession.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$282.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$7,551.0 / + 15.0 FTE) This funding will support the Agency's efforts to assess and
potentially address major stationary sources using the authorities under the section 111 of
the Clean Air Act, including 15.0 FTE and associated payroll of $1,982.0. These
resources and FTE would support the potential development of NSPS for six to eight
major-source categories using an integrated approach to identify the most cost-effective
means of reducing a range of air pollutants.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
205
-------
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$93,700.7
$11,395.0
$105,095.7
695.8
FY2010
Enacted
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$134,634.0
$7,697.0
$142,331.0
860.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$35,015.0
($3,746.0)
$31,269.0
145.8
Program Project Description:
This Federal support program assists state, Tribal, and local air pollution control agencies in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of programs to implement the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the visibility protection program. EPA develops Federal
measures and regional strategies that help to reduce emissions from stationary and mobile
sources; however, states and tribes have the primary responsibility for developing clean air
measures necessary to meet the NAAQS and protect visibility. EPA partners with states, tribes,
and local governments to create a comprehensive compliance program to ensure that multi-
source and multi-pollutant reduction targets and air quality improvement objectives, including
consideration of environmental justice issues, are met and sustained.
For each of the six criteria pollutants, EPA tracks two kinds of air pollution trends: air pollutant
concentrations based on actual measurements in the ambient (outside) air at selected monitoring
sites throughout the country and emissions based on engineering estimates or measurements of
the total tons of pollutants released into the air each year. EPA works with state and local
governments to ensure the technical integrity of source controls in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) and assists in identifying the most cost-effective control options available, including
consideration of multi-pollutant reduction and innovative strategies. The Federal support
program includes working with other Federal agencies to ensure a coordinated approach and
working with the United Nations and other countries to assist them in addressing pollution
sources outside U.S. borders that pose risks to public health and the environment within the U.S.
This program also supports the development of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air
pollutants.
Toxic air pollutants are known to cause increased risk of cancer and other serious health effects.
This Federal support program assists state, Tribal, and local air pollution control agencies in
reducing air toxic emissions through modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategies,
and program development for community-based toxics programs. EPA also supports programs
that reduce inhalation risk and deposition to water bodies and ecosystems (e.g., the Great Waters
program), facilitate international cooperation to reduce transboundary and intercontinental air
toxics pollution, develop and update the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), develop risk
206
-------
assessment methodologies for toxic air pollutants, and provide training for air pollution
professionals. In addition, the program includes activities for implementation of Federal air
toxics standards and the triennial National Air Toxics Assessments.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Particulate Matter (PM) is linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths per year and repeated
exposure to ozone can cause acute respiratory problems and lead to permanent lung damage.
Elevated levels of lead in children have been associated with IQ loss, poor academic
achievement, and delinquent behavior, while effects in adults include increased blood pressure,
cardiovascular disease, and decreased kidney function. Implementation of the PM, Ozone, and
Lead NAAQS is among the Agency's highest priorities. EPA will continue to support these
standards by taking Federal oversight actions and by developing regulations and policies to
ensure continued health protection during the transition between the pre-existing and new
standards. EPA will provide technical and policy assistance to states developing or revising
attainment SIPs and will designate areas as attainment or nonattainment.
While the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) undergoes revision, EPA will continue
implementing Phase I of the existing CAIR to ensure that the Agency maximizes reductions and
to support attainment of the PM 2.s and ozone standards. EPA will work with states to develop
information needed to designate areas for the revised lead standards and for possible new sulfur
dioxide (802) and nitrogen dioxide (NC^) standards. EPA also will provide technical and policy
assistance to states developing or revising regional haze implementation plans. EPA will
continue to review and act on SIP submissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
EPA will continue implementing recommendations of the National Research Council, including:
(1) developing a more integrated multiple pollutant management framework that incorporates
criteria and toxic air pollutants, (2) incorporating ecosystem impacts, community effects, and
future air quality and climate interactions, and (3) assessing the progress of air programs through
an accountability framework. EPA will continue to evaluate and implement, as appropriate, key
reform recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on Air
Quality Management, including working with selected state and local agencies to pilot
comprehensive multi-pollutant air quality planning programs. In addition, EPA will continue to
review issues on reactivity of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and potentially propose
updates to the VOC control policy.
EPA will provide assistance to state, local, and Tribal agencies in implementing national
programs and assessing their effectiveness. EPA uses a broad suite of analytical tools, such as
source characterization analyses, emission factors and inventories, statistical analyses, source
apportionment techniques, quality assurance protocols and audits, improved source testing and
monitoring techniques, augmented cost/benefit tools, and urban and regional-scale numerical
grid air quality models to assess control strategies (including voluntary measures). Please see
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ for further details. EPA will maintain these tools (e.g., integrated
multiple pollutant emissions inventory and air quality modeling platforms) to provide the
technical underpinnings for more efficient and comprehensive air quality management and for
integration with climate change activities.
207
-------
In addition, EPA will continue to implement the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy to
maintain, where possible, multiple pollutant monitoring sites to support the development and
evaluation of multiple pollutant air management strategies. This includes significant changes
necessary to effectively implement revised ozone and lead NAAQS monitoring requirements.
EPA will continue development of emissions measurement methods for condensable PM2 5 for
cross-industry application to ensure that accurate and consistent measurement methods can be
employed in the NAAQS implementation program. EPA also will continue to assist other
Federal agencies and state and local governments in implementing the conformity regulations
during this period. The regulations require Federal agencies, taking actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas, to determine that the emissions caused by their actions will conform to the
SIP.
EPA will continue to participate in global and continental air quality management efforts
addressing transboundary air pollution. Additionally, EPA will continue participating in
negotiations under international treaties (e.g., the U.S.-Canada Agreement, Convention on Long
Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs) and will lead and participate in partnerships (e.g., the Global Mercury Programme
partnerships) to address fine particles, ozone, mercury, and POPs; assess trends and impacts on
U.S. air quality using sophisticated models; and build capacity to reduce transboundary air
pollution in key Regional Offices and countries of the world (e.g., India, China, and Mexico).
EPA will continue to operate and maintain the automated Air Quality Subsystem (AQS), which
houses the nation's air quality data and allows for data and technology exchange/transfer. EPA
will modify the AQS, as necessary, to reflect new ambient monitoring regulations and to ensure
that it complies with only the most critical programmatic needs and with EPA's architecture and
data standard requirements. The AQS Data Mart will continue to provide access to the scientific
community and others to obtain air quality data via the Internet. Please see
http://epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ for more details. EPA also will continue to operate and maintain
AirNow, which provides real-time air quality data and forecasts nationwide. Further, EPA will
operate and maintain the new emissions inventory system (EIS), a database for current and
historical emissions inventory data that is used to store emissions information and generate NEI
reports. The NEI will be used by EPA, states, and others to analyze the public health risks from
air toxics and to develop strategies to manage those risks and support multi-pollutant analysis
covering air toxics, NAAQS pollutants, and greenhouse gases. EPA will maintain the in-use
version of the NEI and accept and perform data quality and initial analytical work on state
national inventory files for use in updating the 2008 NEI. These files will be submitted via the
new EIS. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html for additional information.
EPA will continue to focus on the timely issuance of renewal permits and to respond to veto
petitions under the Title V operating permits program. EPA also will continue to address
monitoring issues in underlying Federal and state rules and to take appropriate action to more
broadly improve the Title V program. Please see http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/ for
further details. Among other areas, EPA will perform monitoring support associated with permit
issuance and National Environmental Policy Act evaluation.
208
-------
EPA will revise or develop New Source Review (NSR) regulations to effectively address sources
of criteria pollutants and, as appropriate, greenhouse gases consistent with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and in response to pending legal obligations. EPA will also continue to work
with state and Tribal governments to implement revisions to the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements and NSR rules, including updates to delegation agreements
(for delegated states) and review of implementation plan revisions (for SIP-approved states).
EPA also will continue to review and respond to reconsideration requests and (working with
DOJ) legal challenges related to NSR program revisions and will take any actions necessary to
respond to court decisions. In addition, EPA will continue to work with states and industries on
NSR applicability issues.
During FY 2010, EPA expects to determine the ways in which the Title V operating permits and
PSD programs relate to greenhouse gases (GHGs). EPA will define when and how permitting is
triggered, and will issue policy and guidance on GHG-related issues in these programs. While
initial rules and guidance will be issued during FY 2010, EPA anticipates that increased
resources will be needed for permitting in FY 2011.
At the national level, EPA will develop sector- and source-specific guidance that will help
permitting authorities and affected sources better understand program requirements for GHGs,
GHG emissions for the selected source categories, methods for estimating those emissions,
control strategies for GHG emissions, and available GHG measurement and monitoring
techniques. EPA also will address complex national policy questions that are likely to arise as
new requirements are implemented.
To improve the NAAQS Federal program, EPA will continue to implement program
improvements, within current statutory limitations, that address deficiencies in design and
implementation and to identify and evaluate needed improvements that are beyond current
statutory authority. EPA will continue to develop measures of permit program efficiency and
make program adjustments.
EPA will continue to work with state and local agencies to implement the National Air Toxics
Monitoring Network. The network has two main parts: the National Air Toxics Trends Sites
(NATTS) and Local Scale Monitoring (LSM) projects. The NATTS, designed to capture the
impacts of widespread pollutants, is comprised of 27 permanent monitoring sites, and the LSMs
are comprised of scores of short-term monitoring projects, each designed to address specific
local issues. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html for additional information.
With requested FY 2011 funding, EPA will continue working on improving monitoring systems
to fill data gaps and get a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution.
EPA also will continue updating the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA), an analytical
effort designed to provide nationwide information on ambient levels of criteria and toxics air
pollutants. Through enhancing such tools, EPA will support expanded analyses and information
access.
In addition to meeting CAA requirements, EPA will continue building on its multi-pollutant and
sector pilot efforts by constructing and organizing initiatives around industrial sectors. The focus
209
-------
of these efforts is to address an individual sector's emissions comprehensively and to prioritize
regulatory efforts on the pollutants of greatest concern. EPA looks at all pollutants in an
industrial sector and identifies ways to take advantage of the co-benefits of pollution control. In
developing sector and multi-pollutant approaches, EPA evaluates several approaches currently
used in pollution control (e.g., cap and trade, opt-in, and plant-wide programs) and seeks
innovative solutions that address the differing nature of the various sectors.
EPA will provide information and training to states and communities through case studies,
documents, websites, and workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments and
identifying risk reduction strategies for air toxics. This will allow state, local, and Tribal
governments, industry, public interest groups, and local citizens to work together to determine if
actions are needed, and if so, what should be done.
EPA will consider the climate impacts of short-lived climate forcers that are traditional air
pollutants like black carbon (a constituent of particulate matter) and ozone. Current research
suggests reducing emissions of these pollutants may reduce climate change in the near-term and
have benefits for sensitive regions, such as the Arctic. Substantial work will be required to
complete several assessment efforts, the most significant being the Black Carbon Report to
Congress, which must be completed by April 2011, but also parallel assessments by the Arctic
Council, the Convention on the Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants, and the United Nations
Environment Program, all of which have substantial EPA involvement.
EPA will work with its state, local, and Tribal partners to ameliorate the impacts of air toxics
emissions on sub-populations and communities, particularly disadvantaged groups, in a
coordinated manner. This will be accomplished through reducing exposures and risks from high
priority air toxics emissions sources by deploying emissions monitoring, analytical techniques,
control technology expertise, and enforcement resources, and by working directly with specific
communities. Key to the process will be preparing outreach materials, developing websites, and
performing other community outreach activities. In communities with large English as a Second
Language (ESL) populations, outreach materials will be developed in other languages, as
appropriate.
In FY 2011, the Agency will conduct integrated pilots to evaluate and, if applicable, reduce risks
from air toxics through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary efforts. Working with the
Regional Offices and other partners, EPA will select communities for the pilots in separate
regions of the U.S. Factors that may influence the selection of communities include: (1)
available information indicating the likely presence of high exposures to air toxics, (2)
community characteristics indicative of high potential benefit from emission reductions coupled
with less capability at the community level to independently act on such exposures, and (3) the
presence of established community organizations that we can work with effectively.
Once the communities are selected, the participating Regional Offices (potential pilot
communities could involve more than one Regional Office) will develop regional pilot teams
responsible for community activities such as monitoring, outreach, inspections, and enforcement.
Headquarters will coordinate this effort across multiple Regional Offices, providing technical
support and guidance, as needed. Regional staff will deploy emissions monitoring, analytical
210
-------
resources, control technology expertise, and enforcement resources, and conduct outreach and
communication activities within the communities. In addition, Regional staff will collect
performance measure data that will demonstrate if this approach is successful at reducing
exposure from air toxics at the community level. The communication materials and websites
developed by Headquarters will assist the regions in performing various community outreach
activities, including:
• Developing communication plans and preparing materials mplain English and other
languages for specific community groups.
• Conducting community focus groups and listening sessions to measure
comprehension of materials developed.
• Training communities on innovative approaches to reduce pollution.
• Educating residents on ways to protect public health and the environment.
• Creating a community website providing updates on progress with the toxics
initiative.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days to
process State
Implementation Plan
revisions, weighted by
complexity.
FY 2009
Target
2.4
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
2.9
FY2011
Target
3.1
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
average number of
days during the ozone
season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in
non-attainment areas,
weighted by
population.
FY 2009
Target
23
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
26
FY2011
Target
29
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of new Title V
operating permits
issued within 18
months of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
99
FY2011
Target
99
Units
Percent
211
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2009
Target
10
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
11
FY2011
Target
12
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of fine particulate
matter (PM-2. 5) in all
monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
FY 2009
Target
5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
6
FY2011
Target
6
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of major NSR
permits issued within
one year of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2009
Target
78
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
78
FY2011
Target
78
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of significant
Title V operating
permit revisions issued
within 1 8 months of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
EPA, collaborating with the states, will continue implementing Federal measures and assisting
with the development of clean air plans to move the remaining PM2.5 nonattainment areas into
attainment by 2015 and the remaining ozone nonattainment areas into attainment by the CAA-
prescribed dates, ranging from FY 2009 - FY 2024.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,935.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
212
-------
• (+$24,446.0 / + 140.4 FTE) This represents the incoming transfer of resources, including
140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0 and travel of $345.0, from the Federal
Support for Air Toxics program. The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program has been
consolidated with this program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to
air quality management.
• (+$2,255.0 / + 6.5 FTE) As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative, this reflects an
increase to support the Agency's efforts to improve its air toxic monitoring capabilities
on both source-specific and ambient bases, including 6.5 FTE and associated payroll of
$775.0. These resources and FTE will support expanded analyses and information access
by enhancing tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA), National Air
Toxic Assessment (NATA), BenMAP, and Air Facility System (AFS).
• (+$4,864.0 / + 25.0 FTE) This represents an increase for Clean Air Act Permitting
activities, including 25.0 FTE and associated payroll of $3,241.0 and travel of $69.0.
These resources and FTE will support expanded PSD and Title V permit review by the
Regional Offices and sector- and source-specific guidance from headquarters, including
guidance on significant national policy issues.
• (-$485.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+2.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities in support of air toxics
work.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
213
-------
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,168.0
$2,052.4
$26,220.4
136.1
FY2010
Enacted
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($24,446.0)
($2,398.0)
($26,844.0)
-145.8
Program Project Description:
The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program assists state, Tribal, and local air pollution control
agencies and communities with modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategies, and
program development of community-based toxics programs, including the assessment of air
toxics outside schools. EPA also provides support for programs that reduce inhalation risk or
deposition to water bodies and ecosystems, international cooperation to reduce transboundary
and intercontinental air toxic pollution, National Emissions Inventory development and updates,
risk assessment methodologies for toxic air pollutants, Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
activities, and training of air pollution professionals. In addition, the program includes activities
for implementation of Federal air toxics standards and the triennial National Air Toxics
Assessments.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
All activities in this program will be assumed by the Federal Support for Air Quality
Management Program to support the conversion to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air
quality management.
Performance Targets:
• There are no FY 2011 performance targets associated with this Program Project because
the funds are transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$24,446.0 \ -140.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of funding and program
responsibilities, including 140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0, to the Federal
Support for Air Quality Management Program in support of a sector-based multi-
pollutant approach to air quality management.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
214
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,962.0
$2,484.4
$2,299.2
$14,745.6
85.8
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$11,439.0
$2,127.0
$2,593.0
$16,159.0
88.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$144.0
$32.0
$98.0
$274.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Radiation Protection program includes activities that minimize public radiation exposure.
EPA provides oversight of operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA also sets
protective limits on radioactive air emissions and ensures that the Agency has appropriate
methods to manage radioactive releases and exposures. EPA works with other Federal agencies,
states, tribes, and private sector entities to develop and use training, public information, and
voluntary programs to reduce public exposure to radiation.4 Other EPA approaches include
radiation clean-up and waste management guidance, radiation pollution prevention, and guidance
on radiation protection standards and practices to Federal agencies.
EPA also supports assessment of new scientific findings in order to conduct radiation risk
assessments and develops the technical tools for generating radionuclide-specific risk
coefficients. Risk managers use this information to assess health risks from radiation exposure
and to determine appropriate levels for contaminated site clean-up. This information also is used
by EPA to develop radiation protection and risk management policy, guidance, and rulemakings.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to implement its regulatory oversight responsibilities for the Department of
Energy (DOE) activities at the WIPP facility, as mandated by Congress in the WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act of 1992. EPA also will continue its oversight work to ensure the permanent and
safe disposal, consistent with EPA standards,5 of all radioactive waste shipped to WIPP. This
includes conducting inspections of waste generator facilities and evaluating DOE's compliance
with applicable environmental laws and regulations every five years.
EPA will continue protecting public health and the environment from harmful and avoidable
exposure to radiation by providing information about radiation and hazards from radioactive
material. EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to tribes to locate and clean up
4 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/assessment/index.html
5 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.html
215
-------
radioactive wastes produced from uranium mining that contaminate Tribal land and water
resources with radionuclides and heavy metals. This includes consulting with tribes on water
quality issues such as radioactivity levels in the waters; and providing radiation training and
educational materials for these at-risk communities. EPA, in partnership with other Federal
agencies, will continue to promote the management of radiation risks in a consistent and safe
manner at water treatment facilities, and during cleanups at Superfund, DOE, Department of
Defense (DOD), state, local and other Federal sites. EPA will continue to conduct risk
assessments on radiation, including radon, and provide technical tools.
In response to a Science Advisory Board (SAB) advisory issued in January 2008, EPA prepared
a draft update to its 1994 document, Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks, also referred to as the
"Blue Book." The 2009 revised Blue Book (draft) implements revisions to its cancer risk models
and projections, based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report. The SAB Radiation Advisory Committee is now
reviewing the changes in methods for estimating risks described in the new draft Blue Book.
Once EPA receives the SAB's report on the Blue Book, expected in FY 2010, it will begin
revising the tables of radionuclide-specific cancer risk coefficients currently found in Federal
Guidance Report No. 13 (FGR 13), Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to
Radionuclides, to more specifically address sensitive population groups such as infants, women,
and the elderly. EPA will continue to provide national guidance on the risks posed by radiation
in the environment, including technical guidance for conducting and documenting risk
assessments. Risk managers at all levels of government use this information to assess health
risks from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for clean-up of radioactively
contaminated sites. EPA's radiation science is widely relied on and is the objective foundation
for EPA, other Federal agencies and states to develop radiation risk management policy,
standards, and guidance.
EPA developed several outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this
program in response to OMB recommendations. The measures all have baseline data and some
historical data which provide a benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of most
populous US cities
with a RadNet ambient
radiation air
monitoring system,
which will provide data
to assist in protective
action determinations.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Time to approve site
changes affecting
FY 2009
Target
53
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
FY 2010
Target
53
FY2011
Target
53
Units
Percent
216
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
waste characterization
at DOE waste
generator sites to
ensure safe disposal of
transuranic radioactive
waste at WIPP.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
2010
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Population covered by
Radiation Protection
Program monitors per
million dollars
invested.
FY 2009
Target
5,254,000
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
5,779,000
FY2011
Target
5,779,000
Units
Population
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to accomplish its FY 2011 strategic plan goal of
protecting public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated
radioactive waste and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$32.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$172.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$4.0) This increased contract funding will support the issuance of radiation protection
guidance material.
Statutory Authority:
AEA of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970;
CAA Amendments of 1990; CERCLA as amended by the SARA of 1986; Energy Policy Act of
1992, P.L. 102-486; Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3
CFR, 1980; NWPA of 1982; PHSA as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; SOW A; UMTRCA of
1978; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
217
-------
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,672.6
$3,497.5
$6,170.1
40.2
FY2010
Enacted
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$3,088.0
$4,263.0
$7,351.0
42.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$11.0
$87.0
$98.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological emergency response under
the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA maintains its own Radiological Emergency Response
Team (RERT), is a member of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee
(FRPCC), and also supports the Federal Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health (the
"A-Team"). EPA responds to radiological emergencies, conducts national and regional
radiological response planning and training, and develops response plans for radiological
incidents or accidents.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response structure, will
continue to ensure that it maintains and improves the level of readiness to support Federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the NRF and NCP. EPA will
design training and exercises to enhance the RERT's ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities, as
well as analyze them for improvements needed for overall radiation response preparedness.6
Through personnel and asset training and exercises, EPA will continue to enhance and maintain
its state of readiness for radiological emergencies.
EPA will continue to coordinate with its interagency partners under the Federal Radiological
Preparedness Coordinating Committee to revise Federal radiation emergency response plans and
develop radiological emergency response protocols and standards. The Agency will continue to
develop guidance addressing lessons learned from incidents and exercises to ensure more
effective coordination of EPA support with that of other Federal and state response agencies.
EPA will continue to develop and maintain Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for use by Federal,
state, and local responders. Additionally, EPA will provide training on the use of the PAGs to
users through workshops and radiological emergency response exercises.
' Additional information can be accessed at: http: //www. epa. gov/radiation/rert/
218
-------
EPA will continue to participate in planning and implementing international and Federal table-
top and field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD)
and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). EPA also will continue to train state, local, and
Federal officials, and provide technical support to Federal and state radiation, emergency
management, solid waste, and health programs that are responsible for radiological emergency
response and development of their own preparedness programs.
EPA developed several outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this
program in response to OMB recommendations. The measures all have baseline data and some
historical data that provide a benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Level of readiness of
radiation program
personnel and assets to
support federal
radiological emergency
response and recovery
operations.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average time before
availability of quality
assured ambient
radiation air
monitoring data during
an emergency.
FY 2009
Target
0.8
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
0.7
FY2011
Target
0.7
Units
Days
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Level of readiness of
national environmental
radiological laboratory
capacity (meassured as
percentage of
laboratories adhering
to EPA quality criteria
for emergency
response and recovery
decisions.
FY 2009
Target
50
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
7010
£*\J _L \J
FY 2010
Target
60
FY2011
Target
70
Units
Percent
219
-------
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish its FY 2011 strategic plan
goal of protecting public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated
radioactive material and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$16.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$6.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$1.0) This increase in contract funding will support preparedness outreach.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and
Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Executive Order 12241
of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980; Executive Order 12656 of
November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988;
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA); Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and EAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201
(Nunn-Lugar II).
220
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Protect the Ozone Layer
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,961.8
$5,961.8
23.7
FY2010
Enacted
$5,934.0
$5,934.0
23.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,711.0
$5,711.0
23.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($223.0)
($223.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by shielding the earth's surface from harmful
ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years has shown that
Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) used around the world destroy the stratospheric ozone layer
and contribute to climate change.7 Overexposure to increased levels of UV radiation due to
ozone layer depletion is expected to raise the incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other
illnesses.8 Skin cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the U.S. One American dies
almost every hour from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.9 Increased UV levels also
have been associated with other human and non-human risks, including cataracts, immune
suppression, and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.
EPA estimates that in the U.S. alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of
deaths from melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, millions of cases of non-fatal skin cancer
and millions of cases of cataracts, between 1990 and 2165.10 Cataracts are the leading cause of
blindness worldwide and in the U.S., a significant source of cost to the Medicare budget. EPA's
estimates are based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be achieved,
allowing the ozone layer to recover later this century. According to current atmospheric
research, the ozone layer is not expected to recover until midcentury at the earliest, due to the
very long lifetimes of ODS in the stratosphere.11
EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program implements the provisions of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (the Act) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Montreal Protocol), continuing the reduction and control of ODS in the U.S. and lowering
health risks to the American public due to exposure to UV radiation. Since ODS and many of
their substitutes are also potent greenhouse gases, reduction and appropriate control of these
7 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
8 Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2006
Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007.
9 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed July 18, 2007. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_lX_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanoma_50.asp?sitearea=
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPA Report to
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
11 WMO, 2007.
221
-------
substances also provide significant benefits for climate protection by reducing potential use and
emissions of greenhouse gases. The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption
of ODS and requires controls on their use, including banning certain emissive uses, requiring
labeling for consumer choice, and requiring sound servicing practices for the use of ODS in
various products (e.g., air conditioning and refrigeration). The Act also prohibits venting ODS
or their substitutes, including other F-gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). As a signatory
to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is committed to ensuring that our domestic program is at least
as stringent as international obligations and to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically.
With 196 Parties and virtually universal participation, the Montreal Protocol is the most
successful international environmental treaty in existence12. With U.S. leadership, the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol agreed in 2007 to a more aggressive phaseout for ozone-depleting
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). This adjustment to the Montreal Protocol requires dramatic
HCFC reductions during the period 2010-2040, equaling a 47-percent reduction in overall
emissions compared to previous commitments under the Protocol.
The Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program also works with the supermarket industry through
the GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership.13 An EPA cooperative alliance with the
supermarket industry and other stakeholders, GreenChill promotes advanced technologies,
strategies, and practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting
substances and greenhouse gases. The program now includes more than 6,500 stores in 47 states.
In 2008, partners reduced their aggregate total emissions by 8.5 percent.
EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) Program14 is a partnership program that protects
the ozone layer and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through the recovery of ozone-
depleting chemicals from old refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. RAD
Partners will dispose of more than 1 million refrigerant-containing appliances annually; this will
result in ozone-depleting substance emission reductions of over 550 OOP-weighted tons.
While the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program continues to heal the ozone layer and garner
climate co-benefits, EPA also works to improve public health by sharing information to help the
public make better decisions about health and the environment. Because people will live under a
compromised ozone layer until the middle of this century, the Sun Wise Program15 helps educate
children about the importance of UV protection. Sun Wise has grown from 25 schools to over
22,000 since 1999. It is now relied on by public and private schools in every U.S. state, and in
several states, Sun Wise partner schools amount to a quarter of the entire number of schools in
the state. According to a study published in Pediatrics,16 every Federal dollar invested in
Sun Wise results in a $2-$4 savings in health care, years of productive life lost and Medicare
costs.
12 See: http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Kev_Achievements-E.pdf.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Montreal_Protocol_on_Substances_that_Deplete_the_Ozone_Laver,
http://ozone.unep.org/highlights.shtml (Nov 2, 2009 entry)
13 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill
14 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad
15 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/sunwise
16 Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):el074-84. Economic evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise Program:
Sun Protection Education for Young Children. Kyle JW, Hammitt JK, Lim HW, Geller AC, Hall-Jordan LH, Maibach EW, De
Fabo EC, Wagner MC.
222
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In carrying out the requirements of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2011, EPA will
continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for reduction and control of ODS. EPA
will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling ODS production, import, and
emission.
In FY 2011, EPA will focus its work to ensure that ODS production and import caps under the
Montreal Protocol are met. Given that the ODS cap was lowered in 2010, EPA is responding to
an increased number of ODS substitute applications, many of which represent lower GHG
options. Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,17 EPA will review
alternatives to ODS to assist the market's transition to alternatives that are safer, especially for
the climate system. The purpose of the program is to allow a safe, smooth transition away from
ozone-depleting compounds by identifying substitutes that offer lower overall risks to human
health and the environment. As necessary, EPA will restrict use of alternatives for given
applications that are more harmful to human health and the environment on an overall basis, as it
has done for the 400 applications already reviewed. Under the National Recycling and Emission
Reduction Program, required by Section 608 of the Act, venting of ODS and ODS Substitutes
like HFCs are not permitted. In addition, EPA will require recovery and recycling or
reclamation of ODS, primarily in the air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors. Also, EPA will
work with Federal and international agencies to curb illegal import of ODS, and foster the
smooth transition to non-ozone depleting alternatives in various sectors.
Children growing up in America will be exposed to higher levels of UV radiation for many years
because the chemicals that damage the ozone layer have a long atmospheric residence time.
Scientists do not expect the ozone layer to recover completely until later this century.
Recognizing this, EPA will continue to inform the public about simple steps that parents,
children and caregivers can take to reduce children's lifetime risks associated with UV radiation
exposure. Encouraging sun safety behaviors to reduce risk is a proven and cost-effective
approach.
The Clean Air Act requires reductions and a schedule for phasing out the production and import
of ODS. These requirements correspond to the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs, as
set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ODS is weighted based on the damage it does
to stratospheric ozone layer — this is the ozone depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January
1, 1996, the cap for HCFC consumption was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic OOP-
weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989, plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.18
The next significant reduction in production and import of class II HCFCs that the U.S. is
required to meet is no more than 3,810 ODP-weighted metric tons starting in 2010. Further
incremental reductions are required through 2020, until all ODS production and import is phased
out, except for exempted amounts.
17 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
18 Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
223
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Remaining US
Consumption of Class
II ODS, measured in
tons of Ozone
Depleting Potential
(OOP).
FY 2009
Target
<9,900
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
<3,811
FY2011
Target
<3,811
Units
OOP tons
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$22.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$197.0) This request reduces funding for the Sun Wise program. As a result, schools that
rely on continuing support in the form of an updated website offering internet-based
materials for use, additional related printed curriculum and information on sun safety,
will receive reduced support. Additionally, this reduction would reduce the program's
ability to continue to serve new partner schools, jeopardizing EPA's ability to serve more
than about 20 percent of the nation's K-8 population of school children.
• (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$4.0) This increase in funding will support the review of ODS alternatives.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990, Title I, Parts A and D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V
(42 U.S.C. 7661-7661 f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
224
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Protect the Ozone Layer
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,697.0
$9,697.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$25.0
$25.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The ozone layer in the stratosphere protects life on Earth by preventing harmful ultraviolet (UV)
radiation from reaching the Earth's surface. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years
has shown that Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) used around the world are destroying the
stratospheric ozone layer.19 Increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion have
contributed to increased incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other health effects.20 Skin
cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for at least half of all cancers.21 Increased
UV levels also have been associated with other human and non-human risks, including immune
suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.
EPA estimates that in the U.S. alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of non-
00
fatal and fatal skin cancers and cataracts between 1990 and 2165. This estimate is based on the
assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be achieved through full participation by
all countries (both industrialized and developing), allowing the ozone layer to recover. If
developing countries go back to using ODS, at even 70 percent of historic rates, within 20 years
the environmental gains to date would be negated, as would billions of dollars spent. According
to current research, the ozone layer is expected to recover later this century, due to the very long
atmospheric lifetimes of ODS.23 Ending the production and use of ODS not only saves the
ozone layer but reduces the climate impact of these potent greenhouse gases.
Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the U.S. and other
developed countries contribute to the Multilateral Fund to support projects and activities in
developing countries to eliminate the production and use of ODS. Currently, only one country in
the world has not ratified the treaty. The U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Fund, which is
split between EPA and the Department of State, is 22 percent of the total based on the U.N scale
19 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
20 Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer:
2006 Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007.
21 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed July 18, 2007. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_lX_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanoma_50.asp?sitearea=..
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPA Report to
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
23 WMO, 2007.
225
-------
of assessment. The Multilateral Fund draws heavily on U.S. expertise and technologies, and the
permanent seat of the U.S. on the Executive Committee ensures cost-effective assistance.
Negotiated text supporting the 2007 Adjustment to the Protocol commits donor countries,
including the U.S., to "stable and sufficient" funding to the Multilateral Fund. The Parties to the
Montreal Protocol agreed in the 2007 Adjustment to a more aggressive phaseout for ozone-
depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which involves dramatic HCFC reductions during
the period from 2010-2040, equaling a 47-percent reduction in overall emissions. Because the
ODS are also in most cases strong greenhouse gases (GHGs), this faster phaseout also will result
in large reductions in GHG emissions.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's contributions to the Multilateral Fund in FY 2011 will help continue support for cost-
effective projects designed to build capacity and eliminate ODS production and consumption in
over 60 developing countries. Today, the Multilateral Fund supports over six thousand activities
in 148 countries that when fully implemented will prevent annual emissions of more than 431
thousand metric tons of ODS. Additional projects will be considered and approved in
accordance with Multilateral Fund guidelines.
Performance Targets:
Performance measures associated with this program are included in Stratospheric Ozone:
Domestic Program under Environmental Programs and Management.
The Clean Air Act requires reductions and a schedule for phasing out the production and import
of ODS. These requirements correspond to the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs, as
set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ODS is weighted based on the damage it does
to stratospheric ozone layer—this is the ozone depletion potential (OOP). Beginning on January
1, 1996, the cap for HCFC consumption was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-
weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989, plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.24
The next significant reduction in production and import of class II HCFCs that the U.S. is
required to meet is no more than 3,810 ODP-weighted metric tons starting in 2010. Further
incremental reductions are required through 2020, until all ODS production and import is phased
out, except for exempted amounts.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$25.0) Increased funding will support the Multilateral Fund.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990, Title 1, Parts A and D (42 U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V
(42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
24 Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
226
-------
Program Area: Brownfields
227
-------
Brownfields
Program Area: Brownfields
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$23,793.1
$23,793.1
121.9
FY2010
Enacted
$24,152.0
$24,152.0
125.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$27,397.0
$27,397.0
146.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,245.0
$3,245.0
21.0
Program Project Description:
The Brownfields program is designed to help states, tribes, local communities, and other
stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to plan, inventory, assess, safely
cleanup, and reuse brownfields. Brownfields are real property the expansion, redevelopment, or
reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Revitalizing these once productive properties helps
communities by removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for land, helping limit urban
sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling economic development, and
maintaining or improving quality of life. This program comprises the administrative component
of the Brownfields program, supporting human resources, travel, training, technical assistance,
and research activities.
EPA's work is focused on removing barriers and creating incentives for Brownfields
redevelopment. EPA's Brownfields program funds research efforts, clarifies liability issues,
enters into Federal, state, Tribal, and local partnerships, conducts outreach activities, and creates
related job training and workforce development programs. The program provides financial
assistance for: (1) hazardous substances training for organizations representing the interests of
states and Tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields law; and (2) technical outreach support to
address environmental justice issues and support Brownfields research.
EPA's enforcement program develops guidance and tools that define potential liability, thereby
providing greater certainty and comfort for parties seeking to reuse these properties. Through
discussions and the use of enforcement tools, the enforcement program also can provide direct
support to facilitate transactions by parties seeking to reuse contaminated properties.
The Brownfields program supports EPA's EPA Smart Growth25 program which works with
stakeholders to create an improved economic and institutional climate for Brownfields
redevelopment. The Smart Growth program removes barriers and creates incentives for
Brownfields redevelopment by changing standards that affect the viability of Brownfields
redevelopment and by creating cross-cutting solutions that improve the economic, regulatory,
and institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment.
' For more information please refer to http://www.epa.gov/livabilitv/
228
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In addition to supporting the operations and management of the Brownfields program, funds in
FY 2011 will provide financial assistance for training on hazardous waste to organizations
representing the interests of state and Tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields law; the Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA). The program also
offers outreach support for environmental justice issues affecting Tribal and native Alaskan
villages or other disadvantaged communities that need to address perceived or real hazardous
substance contamination at sites in their neighborhood or community.
EPA's Brownfields program manages a significant workload of assessment, cleanup, Revolving
Loan Fund (RLF), and job training cooperative agreements. The FY 2011 request includes
additional FTE as part of the new Healthy Communities initiative to help provide the needed
support in the planning, expeditious award, and performance management of more than 1,550
existing cooperative agreements and an anticipated 600 newly awarded cooperative agreements
in FY 2010 and 2011. The additional FTE in this program will enable the Agency to effectively
and efficiently support the Brownfields activities in the Healthy Communities initiative.
EPA Brownfields grants are in the form of cooperative agreements, which requires considerable
Agency staff involvement, to ensure that sites are properly assessed and cleaned up consistent
with the applicable requirements (e.g., Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)). Current Agency
guidelines recommend an average of no more than 11 cooperative agreements per project officer.
However, in many areas of the country (including areas with many disadvantaged communities
and "cities in transition") the average is as high as 30 grants per project officer. This greatly
compromises the ability to effectively and efficiently manage these grants for the benefit of the
affected communities.
Increases in Regional staff will also facilitate a more effective and efficient delivery of new
resources by assisting at a greater level with the negotiation and award of the technical assistance
and related cooperative agreements. The award of this funding will allow the communities to
initiate the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of these underutilized sites.
EPA will provide technical assistance to communities that were awarded funding to combine
Smart Growth policies with Brownfields redevelopment. EPA also will conduct further research
on incentives for cleanup that encourage Brownfields redevelopment, pilot additional techniques
to accomplish redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and research needs, and
highlight best practices that can be copied in other communities.
EPA's enforcement program will work collaboratively with our partners on innovative
approaches to help achieve the Agency's land reuse priorities. EPA's enforcement program will
develop guidance and tools to provide greater certainty and comfort regarding potential liability
concerns for parties seeking to reuse these properties.
The Smart Growth program will address critical issues for Brownfields redevelopment, including
land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards,
accountability to uniform systems of information for land use controls, and other factors that
229
-------
influence the economic viability of Brownfields redevelopment. The best practices, tools, and
lessons learned from the Smart Growth program will directly inform and assist EPA's efforts to
increase area-wide planning for assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
Requested funding for the Smart Growth program is $1.3 million under Brownfields programs
and $9.9 million under the Regulatory Innovation program.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal
(HPPG), addressing the environmental health of our communities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports performance results in the STAG: Brownfields Program
Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$693.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$81.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$405.07 -1.0 FTE) This change reflects a decrease in resources supporting the National
Brownfields conference due to enhanced administrative efficiencies, which include 1.0
FTE and associated payroll of $131.0.
• (+$1,733.07 +12.0 FTE) This funding will provide technical assistance and support in the
planning, award, and performance management of additional cooperative agreements
awarded for the Healthy Communities initiative. These resources include 12.0 FTE and
associated payroll of $1,651.0.
• (+$1,305.07 +10.0 FTE) This funding provides support for Regional projects officers to
more effectively and efficiently negotiate and award cooperative agreements, including
10.0 FTE and associated payroll of $1,305.0. This funding will allow the communities to
initiate the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of underutilized sites.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (Public Law 107-118); RCRA, Section 8001; GMRA
(1990); SWDA; FFGCAA.
230
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
231
-------
Climate Protection Program
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$97,184.7
$15,880.0
$113,064.7
223.9
FY2010
Enacted
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$123,050.0
$16,940.0
$139,990.0
259.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$10,006.0
($2,857.0)
$7,149.0
33.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Climate Protection Program includes efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
voluntary programs, and supports the Administration's priority of taking action on climate change.
It also provides technical assistance and scientific and economic analysis supporting the
development of climate-related policy options.
EPA's voluntary public-private partnership programs are designed to capitalize on the cost-
effective opportunities that consumers, businesses, and organizations have to invest in
greenhouse-gas reducing technologies, policies, and practices. These investments avoid
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, mobile sources, and various other sources.
EPA's Climate Protection Program has achieved real reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide and fluronited greenhouse gases -
including hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA's climate change programs promote energy efficiency and emissions reductions of non-CO2
greenhouse gases. Actions taken today will continue to deliver environmental and economic
benefits for many years to come, since the investments made by EPA partners as a result of EPA
programs often have lifetimes often years or more. For every dollar spent by EPA on its voluntary
climate change partnership programs, EPA estimates that the programs have reduced greenhouse
gas emissions by up to 1.0 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.67 tons of CC^), delivered more than
$75 in energy bill savings, and facilitated more than $15 in private sector investment.26 This is
based upon cumulative reductions since 1995.
EPA manages a number of voluntary efforts, such as the ENERGY STAR program, SmartWay
Transport Partnership, clean energy partnerships, and multiple programs on non-CC>2 greenhouse
gases, all of which remove barriers in the marketplace in order to deploy cost-effective
technologies faster. EPA programs do not provide financial subsidies. Instead, they work by
overcoming widely acknowledged barriers to energy efficiency and deployment of GHG
reduction measures such as: lack of clear, reliable information on technology opportunities; lack
26 Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/Annual%20Report_122309_to%20EPA_Web.pdf
232
-------
of awareness of energy efficient products, services, and transportation choices; and the need for
additional incentives for manufacturers to invest in efficiency research and development.
EPA works with the Department of Energy (DOE) on the ENERGY STAR program. Consistent
with a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on September 30, 2009, EPA will
manage the specification process for more than 60 product categories, the new and existing homes
programs, and the commercial and industrial programs. This MOU shifts all brand management
responsibility to EPA and clarifies the lines of responsibility between EPA and DOE, building
upon their respective areas of expertise. The ENERGY STAR program continues to yield
significant results. In 2008 alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, prevented more
than 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE), saving $18 billion on their annual
utility bills. ENERGY STAR is on track to meet its goal of avoiding 52 MMTCE of greenhouse
gases in 2012. 27
EPA also manages the implementation of the Methane to Markets Partnership - a US-led,
international initiative that brings together 31 Partner governments and over 900 public and private
sector organizations to advance methane recovery and use as a clean energy source. Methane to
Markets builds on the success of EPA's domestic methane voluntary programs and focuses on
advancing project development at agriculture operations, coal mines, landfills, and oil and gas
systems. As of 2009, the US is supporting over 170 projects around the world and has leveraged
over $278 million in public and private sector investments. These projects are expected to reduce
emissions by 61 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2E) annually28
EPA's SmartWay Partnership Program works with transportation technology and freight industry
partners (shippers, carriers, logistics companies) to accelerate the deployment of fuel saving, low
emission technologies and to promote best practices across the global supply chain. The
SmartWay program started in February 2004 with 15 partners, and in June 2009, it passed 2,000
partner mark. On an annual basis, SmartWay partners commit to achieve reductions of 568 million
gallons of diesel fuel, nearly 6.3 million tons of CO2, 37,000 tons of NOx, and over 2,000 tons of
PM. This accounts for an estimated annual fuel savings of nearly 1.5 billion dollars. SmartWay is
on track to reduce between 9-18 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) emissions
and up to 200,000 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions per year which is its established goal for
2012. At the same time, the program will result in fuel savings of up to 150 million barrels of oil
annually.29
SmartWay has established a benchmark for clean, efficient freight goods movement globally.
Twelve nations participated in an International SmartWay Summit in 2008. As a result, a
SmartWay "green truck" project is underway in China, and Australia and the European Union are
evaluating SmartWay as a model for freight transport efficiency programs. To respond to this
international growth, SmartWay is developing a new supply chain model, working with several
universities including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan.
Additional information at: www.energystar.gov
28 Additional information at: www.epa. gov/methanetomarkets/ and www.methanetomarkets.org
29 Additional information at: www.epa. gov/smartwav
233
-------
The SmartWay brand continues to be a mark of excellence for heavy duty commercial trucks. All
the major class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers now offer at least one SmartWay model, with
many tire and aerodynamic manufacturers designing new components targeted to meet the
SmartWay specification, and EPA is conducting tests to expand its technical verification capacity
under SmartWay
EPA manages a number of other partnership programs that tailor their approach to specific trades
or organizations in the arena of climate change. The Climate Leaders program works with
organizations to help them inventory their emissions and develop comprehensive GHG reduction
strategies. The Clean Energy-Environment State and Local Program provides assistance to local
and state governments for improving their facilities, and leading energy efficiency-related GHG
reduction efforts. EPA's Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership promotes cost-effective
CHP projects, while its Green Power Partnership supports the procurement of green power. The
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is assisting state decision makers to establish the state
policy framework for pursing all cost-effective energy efficiency.
In addition to EPA's voluntary climate change programs, EPA provides analytical and technical
support for the development of policy options for climate-related legislation. In recent years, EPA
has analyzed a number of potential legislative proposals for reducing GHGs from a wide variety of
sources using a cap-and-trade approach.
• EPA's climate change analysis builds on the understanding of (1) the emission and
sequestration of greenhouse gases, for all greenhouse gases and from all sectors of the
economy; (2) the economic, technical and policy issues related to wider deployment of key
mitigation technologies (e.g., energy efficiency, transportation, non-CO2 greenhouse gases,
carbon capture and storage); and (3) the key design elements of a cap and trade system
(including coverage and point of regulation, cost containment mechanisms, offsets,
allowance distribution, and market oversight).
• EPA's economic analyses cover key questions such as: what technologies could be used to
reduce GHG emissions given proposed levels of emission caps; how and when U.S. GHG
emissions would be reduced; and how much such reductions would cost the U.S. economy
as a whole, as well as the impacts on consumption and energy prices.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
• EPA will continue to implement its government/industry partnership efforts to achieve
greenhouse gas reductions. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these efforts
are projected to reduce other forms of pollution, including air pollutants such as nitrogen
oxides (NOX), particulate matter, and mercury by accelerating the adoption of energy
efficient products and practices.
• EPA will continue to implement the ENERGY STAR program across the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors consistent with the new EPA/DOE MOU:
234
-------
o
o
o
o
Enhancing the use of the ENERGY STAR label on products including adding
products to the program, accelerating the rate that product specifications are
updated in terms of stringency, and developing a comprehensive product
certification and verification initiative for ENERGY STAR qualifying products.
Expanding the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program, leveraging
alternative, market-based models for delivery, to increase the number of homes
retrofitted each year.
Expanding ENERGY STAR programs that improve the installation of products
such as heating and cooling equipment whose efficiency is greatly affected by
installation practices.
Expanding efforts to promote improvement of commercial buildings and industrial
facilities through EPA's ENERGY STAR tools, resource, and outreach campaigns.
The FY 2011 Budget Request for the ENERGY STAR program totals $55.5 million.
Energy Star Program Funding
Dollars in Millions
Energy Star Total:
-Residential
-Commercial and
Institutional
-Industrial
FY 2008
Enacted
$48.2
$24.0
$21.7
$2.5
FY 2009
Enacted
$49.7
$25.0
$22.2
$2.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$52.6
$25.9
$24.2
$2.5
FY2011
Request
$55.5
$26.2
$26.8
$2.5
• Continue the SmartWay Transport Partnership to increase energy efficiency and lower
emissions of freight transportation through verification, promotion, and low-cost financing
of advanced technologies including diesel engine retrofits, anti-idling technologies, lower
rolling resistant tires, improved aerodynamic truck designs, and improved freight logistics.
SmartWay also will expand its efforts to:
o develop GHG measurement protocols for heavy-duty diesel trucks and freight
supply chain network;
o promote SmartWay certified light duty and heavy duty vehicles that meet
SmartWay's criteria for environmentally superior performance;
o streamline and expand our SmartWay partner recruiting and management efforts;
o create a definition for low GHG emitting vehicles and develop guidance for
implementation of Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) section 141
Federal vehicle purchase requirements.
The FY 2011 Budget Request for the Smartway Transport Partnership program totals
$2.7 million.
• Continue the Methane-to-Markets Partnership by assessing the feasibility of methane
recovery and use projects at landfills, agricultural waste operations, coal mines, and natural
235
-------
gas and oil facilities, and by identifying and addressing institutional, legal, regulatory and
other barriers to project development in partner countries. The FY 2011 Budget Request
for the Methane to Markets program totals $4.6 million.
• Continue policy and technical assistance to developing countries and countries with
economies-in-transition to monitor, report and verify greenhouse emissions and
sequestration through cost-effective measures and assist in the fulfillment of the U.S.
obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
• Produce measurable international greenhouse gas emission reductions through clean
industrialization partnerships with key developing countries, including China, Mexico,
India, and South Korea.
• In FY 2011, EPA will work to address several critical air and climate-related issues related
to commercial scale deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.
These issues and related activities include, but are not limited to: determining the
applicability of the Clean Air Act, and other environmental statutes, to the capture,
transport, and storage components of a CCS project; evaluating technical and economic
implications of applying carbon dioxide capture to currently regulated industry sectors,
including the potential for increases or decreases in emissions of other criteria pollutants
resulting from CCS retrofits; and, developing a framework for the permitting of the carbon
dioxide capture component of a CCS project.
• EPA will continue to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, finalized in
September, 2009, and provide technical expertise in analyzing proposed GHG limiting
legislation. These efforts will be supported by both headquarters and Regional offices. The
first annual reports from the largest GHG emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010,
will be submitted to EPA on March 31, 2011. In order to prepare for this, focus areas in
FY 2011 for the GHG Reporting Rule will include:
o completion of the database management systems;
o ongoing guidance and training to affected facilities to ensure that they report in an
accurate and timely manner;
o verification of the reported data, through a combination of electronic reviews and
on-site audits; and
o development of mechanisms to share the reported data within the Federal
government, with state and local governments, and with reporting entities to support
improved understanding of both emission levels and opportunities for GHG
reductions.
The funding request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is $20.8 million.
• In 2011, developing comprehensive market-based legislative options will be a focus of
efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. For example, cap and trade legislation can meet
environmental goals efficiently and with flexibility for affected entities to ensure reductions
are achieved at the lowest possible costs. The Administration supports efforts to design an
236
-------
effective climate policy in cooperation with the Congress. EPA also will focus on key
analytical and implementation issues related to the use of offsets in a GHG trading system
and the analysis of allowance rebate programs for internationally competitive industries.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal
(HPPG), addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases (specified in full in Appendix
A).
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2009
Target
35.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
39
FY2011
Target
42.2
Units
MMTCE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2009
Target
72.9
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
82.9
FY2011
Target
92.8
Units
MMCTE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2009
Target
2.6
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
4.3
FY2011
Target
7.2
Units
MMTCE
There are over 20 climate change programs that work with the private sector to cost effectively
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate energy efficiency improvements. Each sector
(buildings, industry and transportation) has performance and efficiency measures to track the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are reduced as a result of the program's efforts.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$277.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$4,065.0 \ +20.0 FTE) Additional resources are requested to support the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule, including 20.0 FTE with associated payroll of $2,901.0. Of the 20
FTE, 10 FTE will handle the general reporting and verification workload across the many
industry sectors and emission sources and 10 FTE will work with states and follow-up on
specific issues. The funding will enable EPA to receive, quality-assure, and verify data
237
-------
submitted electronically from 10,000-15,000 covered facilities. In addition it will fund
guidance and support of the first year of reporting, including technical support meetings
and documents, trainings, and workshops.
• (-$105.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for other, non-priority programs.
• (+$500.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a Web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/Web conferencing capabilities are
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed Internet capacity.
• (-$100.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$2,869.0 \ +11.0 FTE) Additional resources are requested to expand the ENERGY
STAR program across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, including 11.0
FTE with associated payroll of $1,498 and $43.0 for travel. Key investments in EPA's
energy efficiency programs will expand their reach and make an important contribution
to advancing the Administration's climate change objectives.
• (+$2,000.0 \ +2.0 FTE) Additional resources are requested to analyze the applicability of
Clean Air Act authority, and conduct further analyses related to carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) technology as it relates to EPA's mission to protect public health and
the environment, including associated payroll of $280.0 and $7.0 for travel.
• (+$500.0) Funds are requested for the development of Web tools and the enhancement of
EPA's information access and technology infrastructure in support of the Agency's efforts
to meet the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108; PPA, 42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604 and 6605; NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102;
GCPA, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; FTTA, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a; CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq. - Section 104; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.- Section 8001; EPA, 42 U.S.C. 16104 et seq.
238
-------
Program Area: Compliance
239
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$802.4
$293.5
$22.0
$26,113.9
179.8
FY2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Assistance and Centers program provides information to millions of
regulated entities, Federal agencies, particularly small businesses and local governments, to help
them understand and meet their environmental obligations. This information lets regulated
entities know of their legal obligations under Federal environmental laws. Compliance assistance
resources include comprehensive Web sites, compliance guides, emission calculators, and
training materials aimed at specific business communities or industry sectors. Also, onsite
compliance assistance and information is sometimes provided by EPA inspectors during an
inspection.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Compliance Assistance and Centers program is being streamlined and merged with the
Compliance Monitoring and Civil Enforcement programs in FY 2011. The FY 2011
enforcement and compliance assurance budget reflects changes in how the Agency accomplishes
its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes, and the program's evolving role vis-
a-vis the states. Specifically, EPA is merging the historical tool-based program project activities
for compliance assistance and incentives into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
programs. Achieving compliance with environmental laws requires a focus on outcomes using a
mix of assistance, incentives, and enforcement actions, often in combination to achieve
environmental and public health protections. The program is currently re-evaluating the best
balance of investment across the various activities that the EPA enforcement program carries out
- oversight of state performance, direct implementation activities where states are not authorized,
and the implementation of national priorities. The changes support the Agency's emphasis on
pragmatic and more nimble approach to enforcement - using the right tools at the right level of
government to achieve compliance and deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and
criminal.
240
-------
Performance Targets:
The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring program projects, where these resources have
been realigned.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$24,905.07 -162.5 FTE) This reduction reflects the Agency's proposal to integrate the
tool-based program project activities for Compliance Assistance into the Civil
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs, including associated payroll of
$21,905.0.
• (-$717.07 -4.6 FTE) This is a reduction to Compliance Assistance Centers and tool
development, reflecting a greater reliance on electronic means for disseminating
assistance information. This change, including associated payroll of $621.0, reflects
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
skills, and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
241
-------
Compliance Incentives
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,710.0
$129.3
$8,839.3
58.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,560.0
$0.0
$9,560.0
62.5
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($9,560.0)
$0.0
($9,560.0)
-62.5
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Incentives program encourages regulated entities to monitor and quickly
correct environmental violations, reduce pollution, and make improvements in regulated entities'
environmental management practices. EPA uses a variety of approaches to encourage entities to
self-disclose environmental violations under various environmental statues. EPA's Audit Policy
encourages internal audits of environmental compliance and subsequent correction of self-
discovered violations, providing a uniform enforcement response toward disclosures of
violations and accelerating compliance.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Compliance Incentives program, which encourages internal audits of
environmental compliance and subsequent correction of self-discovered violations, will be
shifted to the Civil Enforcement program as part of the enforcement and compliance assurance
program's realignment effort.
The Agency's FY 2011 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget reflects changes in how
the Agency accomplishes its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes, and the
program's evolving role vis-a-vis the states. Specifically, EPA is merging the historical tool-
based program activities for Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance Incentives into
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs. This reflects our integrated work
on strategic problems under the EPA Strategic Plan and our sharpened focus on environmental
and compliance results. Achieving compliance with environmental laws requires a focus on
outcomes using a mix of assistance, incentives, and enforcement actions, often in combination to
achieve environmental and public health protections. The FY 2011 budget also provides a more
flexible enforcement program as the Agency re-evaluates the best balance of investment across
the various activities that the EPA enforcement program carries out - oversight of state
performance, direct implementation activities where states are not authorized, and the
implementation of national priorities. The changes support the Agency's pragmatic and flexible
approach to enforcement - using the right tools at the right level of government to achieve
compliance and deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and criminal.
242
-------
Performance Targets:
The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement program project, where these resources have been realigned.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,560.07 -62.5 FTE) This shift of resources, including associated payroll of $8,672.0,
reflects the integration of enforcement tool-based activities by realigning the Compliance
Incentives program into the Civil Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
243
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$98,457.1
$0.0
$1,265.2
$99,722.3
613.6
FY2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$110,467.0
$139.0
$1,220.0
$111,826.0
632.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$11,067.0
$139.0
$4.0
$11,210.0
20.2
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Monitoring program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment by targeting inspections and other compliance monitoring activities according to the
degree of health and environmental risk in order to promote compliance with Federal
environmental statutes and regulations. Compliance monitoring involves all activities to
determine whether regulated entities are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit
conditions, and settlement agreements. In addition, these activities are conducted to determine
whether conditions exist that may present imminent and substantial endangerment to human
health and the environment. Compliance monitoring activities include data collection, analysis
and review, on-site compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, and reviews of facility
records and monitoring reports. EPA's Compliance Monitoring program includes the
management of compliance and enforcement data and information systems, and the use of the
data to target and manage the compliance and enforcement program.30 The program also
responds to information requests and tips and complaints from the public. The multi-media
approaches such as cross-media inspections, sector initiatives, and risk-based targeting allow the
Agency to take a more holistic approach to protecting ecosystems and to solving the more
intractable environmental problems.
In addition, as a part of this program, the Agency reviews and responds to 100 percent of the
notices for movement of hazardous waste across U.S. international borders. The Agency ensures
that these wastes are properly handled in accordance with international agreements and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.31
EPA conducts compliance monitoring activities, as well as coordinates with, provides support to,
and oversees the performance of states, local agencies, and Tribal governments that conduct
compliance monitoring activities. EPA's activities target areas that pose significant risks to
human health or the environment, display patterns of noncompliance, or involve
disproportionately exposed populations. The Agency's Compliance Monitoring program also
' For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring /index.html.
' For more information about the Import/Export program, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/intemational/importexport.html.
244
-------
provides technical assistance and training to Federal, state and Tribal inspectors. EPA's efforts
complement state and Tribal programs to ensure compliance with laws throughout the United
States. EPA works with states and tribes to identify where these compliance inspections,
evaluations, and investigations will have the greatest impact on achieving environmental results.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency is merging the Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance
Incentives programs primarily into the Civil Enforcement program with a small amount of
assistance activities moving into the Compliance Monitoring program. Under the current
structure, the program is bound by a rigid, pre-established allocation of resources for individual
enforcement tools. The new model allows us to focus on outcomes, tailoring our approach to
address the unique characteristics and requirements of individual cases. This new model will also
allow us to be flexible in our relationship with the states, refining our role as state capabilities
evolve to best support the national enforcement program. Merging the Compliance Assistance
and Compliance Incentives programs into the enforcement program affords the Agency the
necessary flexibility to pursue the most effective work and communicates our commitment to
vigorous enforcement, making the threat of Federal enforcement more credible.
In FY 2011, the compliance monitoring program will emphasize the core programs and national
priority activities identified in the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's FY 2011-2013
National Program Manager's Guidance as well as supporting and overseeing authorized
state/Tribal programs.32 The priority selection process is currently underway for the FY 2011-
2013 cycle, which may lead to changes in where EPA focuses its compliance monitoring efforts.
Certain existing national priorities remain complex and challenging problems including Clean
Water Act "Wet Weather" discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, and
RCRA violations at mineral processing facilities. Information on priorities, regulatory
requirements, compliance monitoring activities and tools, and EPA results will be made available
to the public and the regulated community through EPA's Web sites.
To ensure the quality of compliance monitoring activities, EPA is continuing to develop national
policies, update inspection manuals, provide required training for inspectors, and issue inspector
credentials. EPA conducts training to ensure that the inspectors/investigators are: 1)
knowledgeable of environmental requirements and policies, 2) technically proficient in
conducting compliance inspections/evaluations and taking samples, and 3) skilled at
interviewing potential witnesses and documenting inspection/evaluation results. Compliance
monitoring activities include oversight of and support to states and tribes, as well as authorizing
states/tribes employees to conduct inspections and evaluations on EPA's behalf. EPA works
across the Agency and with states and tribes to build capacity, share tools and approaches, and
develop networks of professionals that can share and help build expertise.
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/index.htm.
245
-------
EPA monitors the quality of laboratory data which is required to be reported to the Agency by
the regulated community. The Agency will continue efforts to improve its efficiency by
integrating technology and electronic reporting into the inspection and evaluation process.
Adopting 21st century tools provides an opportunity to improve the timeliness and accuracy of
data collection and entry, endows the program with uniformity in the inspection and evaluation
process, and increases the speed for submitting inspection and evaluation reports.
Compliance monitoring includes EPA's management and use of data systems to run its
compliance and enforcement programs under the various statutes and programs that EPA
enforces. The Agency will continue its multi-year project to modernize its national enforcement
and compliance data system, called the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), which
supports both compliance monitoring and civil enforcement. ICIS is in the second of three
phases of development:
• Phase I of ICIS established a multi-media Federal enforcement and compliance database
in FY 2002.
• Phase II of ICIS is the modernization of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which
supports EPA and state management of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. As of January 2010, the total number of states using ICIS-
NPDES is 31. Also in 2009, a Net Discharge Monitoring Report tool was deployed that
allows facilities to report their discharge monitoring reports directly to ICIS, with the
potential of saving the regulated community, states and EPA millions of dollars. The
work necessary to complete Phase II will start FY 2010 and continue in FY 2011.
• Phase III of ICIS expands the system to include the unique requirements of the Clean Air
Act stationary sources compliance and enforcement program through the modernization
of the Air Facility System (AFS). In FY 2011, as part of the Healthy Communities
Initiative, EPA will utilize new resources to incorporate work done to date on system
design, detailed business requirements, and alternatives analyses into ICIS-CAA system
development. More specifically, EPA will begin work on the AFS modernization by
building an Air Toxics module in ICIS to manage information for these sources. This
information will be integrated with existing ICIS capabilities for tracking inspections,
compliance status, and enforcement actions. In addition, the AFS information will be
added to our targeting tools and made publicly available through the Agency's
Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) web site, with easy-to-use tools
added to assist the public in understanding and using the data.
As part of the Healthy and Sustainable Communities Initiative, the Agency also will help
improve the health of children by assessing how noncompliance contributes to significant health
risks in schools, and target compliance and enforcement actions to reduce risks to children. In
addition, the enforcement program will consolidate the resources for implementing the
Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 13508 in the Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay program
while resources supporting the Mississippi River Basin Initiative will remain in the Compliance
Monitoring program. Both of these initiatives will support the Agency's priority to restore the
Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin by providing information about wet weather
246
-------
sources of pollution. This will also ensure that the Initiatives result in an increase in knowledge,
use, transparency, and public access to data about wet weather sources through: 1) building an
electronic reporting module for getting non-major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot with
states in the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin; 2) building and deploying
targeting tools to help identify the most significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of
pollutants most responsible for the impairment of these important water bodies; and 3) making
all non-enforcement confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's
ability to use and understand the data.
EPA is committed to making meaningful facility compliance information available and
accessible to the public using 21st century technologies. EPA will continue to increase the
transparency of EPA's monitoring and enforcement program by making multi-media compliance
monitoring information available to the public through the ECHO Internet website during FY
2011. This site, and its powerful companion tool that serves more than 400 government entities,
the Online Targeting and Information System (OTIS), provides communities and regulators with
compliance status information, averaging approximately 75,000 queries per month.
The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 directed the Agency to create the National Enforcement
Training Institute (NETI) to provide environmental enforcement and compliance training
nationwide to all levels of government. In FY 2011, NETI will be streamlined to enhance
efficiencies in enforcement training across the Agency, taking advantage of web-based tools. In
addition, the Enforcement Training program will be consolidated into the Compliance
Monitoring program which houses other training activities. Thus, resources supporting the
following NETI activities will move to the Compliance Monitoring program: 1) the central
coordination role for training that is planned and conducted by EPA offices; 2) the grant
management for cooperative agreements that provide training in the compliance and enforcement
areas to state programs; 3) the Legal Intern program; and 4) the lead role in conducting web-
based enforcement training.
EPA will continue to review all notices for trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and
notices for export of Cathode Ray Tubes to ensure compliance with domestic regulations and
international agreements. While the vast majority of the hazardous waste trade occurs with
Canada, the United States also has international trade agreements with Mexico, Malaysia, Costa
Rica, and the Philippines, and is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), which issued a Council Decision controlling trans-boundary movement
of hazardous waste applicable to all member countries. In 2009, EPA responded to 1,381 notices
representing 615 import notices and 766 export notices.
The Agency will continue to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by inspecting
underground storage tanks covering a wide range of industries including gas stations, chemical
companies, and federal facilities. The program also will focus on monitoring compliance with
gasoline rules.
247
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Total number of
regulated entities that
change behavior
resulting in direct
environmental benefits
or the prevention of
pollution into the
environment for air as
a result of EPA
enforcement and
compliance actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
127
FY2011
Target
127
Units
Entities
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Total number of
regulated entities that
change behavior
resulting in direct
environmental benefits
or the prevention of
pollution into the
environment for water
as a result of EPA
enforcement and
compliance actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
608
FY2011
Target
608
Units
Entities
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Total number of
regulated entities that
change behavior
resulting in direct
environmental benefits
or the prevention of
pollution into the
environment for land
as a result of EPA
enforcement and
compliance actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
213
FY2011
Target
213
Units
Entities
Results will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2010, and will be
reported in the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and the FY 2012
Congressional Justification.
248
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,850.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$2,374.07 +10.2 FTE) This increase, including associated payroll of $1,347.0, reflects
the Agency's efforts to realign the enforcement program. Specifically, the Agency's
FY 2011 enforcement and compliance assurance budget reflects changes in how the
Agency will accomplish its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes,
and the program's evolving role vis-a-vis the states. EPA will merge the historical tool-
based program project activities for Compliance Assistance and Compliance Incentives
into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs to enhance
flexibility, better focus on outcomes, and communicate clearly that we are committed to
a vigorous enforcement program.
• (+$1,906.07 +8.0 FTE) This increase transfers resources, including associated payroll of
$1,056.0, from the Enforcement Training program for the National Enforcement
Training Institute's (NETI) support for web-based training, cooperative agreements for
the four Regional State Environmental Enforcement Associations, and EPA's legal
intern program.
• (+$1,540.07 +1.0 FTE) This increase includes $132.0 in associated payroll and will
allow EPA to begin modernizing the AFS by building an Air Toxics module in ICIS to
manage information for these sources pursuant to the Healthy Communities Initiative.
This information will be integrated with existing capabilities to track inspections,
compliance status, and enforcement actions and added to our targeting tools. The
information will be made public through the Agency's ECHO web site, with easy-to-
use tools added to assist the public in understanding and using the data.
• (+$13.07 +0.1 FTE) This change reflects a Regional realignment of resources to
enhance improvements in NPDES data quality and the ability of the states data systems
to interface effectively with ICIS.
• (+$600.0) This increase in resources is part of the Agency's Mississippi River Basin
Initiative, the Compliance Monitoring program will do the following: 1) build an
electronic reporting module for getting non-major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to
pilot with states in the Mississippi River Basin; 2) build and deploy targeting tools to
identify the most significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants
responsible for the impairment of this water body; and, 3) make all non-enforcement
confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use
and understand the data.
• (+$2,000.0) This increase will be divided into two related activities: EPA will use
$800.0 to design and develop the necessary functionality in ICIS-NPDES to enable the
electronic (batch) transfer of NPDES data from full batch states' system to ICIS-
NPDES via the Environmental Exchange Network. In addition, EPA will provide
$1,200.0 in assistance to the full batch states to help them modify their own state
249
-------
systems to electronically flow data to ICIS-NPDES via the Environmental Exchange
Network.
• (-$216.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
250
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
251
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$138,113.2
$0.0
$2,060.5
$167.2
$140,340.9
949.5
FY2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$0.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$187, 755.0
$847.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$191,161.0
1,229.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$41,119.0
$847.0
$561.0
$0.0
$42,527.0
240.8
Program Project Description:
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment through targeting enforcement actions according to the degree of health and
environmental risk in order to promote compliance with Federal environmental statutes and
regulations. The program collaborates with the Department of Justice and states, local agencies
and Tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and
regulations. The program seeks to aggressively pursue violations that threaten communities,
level the economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit
from noncompliance, and deter future violations. The Civil Enforcement program develops,
litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of
environmental laws.
EPA's national enforcement and compliance assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance with 12 environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and dozens
of regulatory requirements under those programs which apply in various combinations to a
universe of approximately 40 million regulated Federal and private entities. In addition, as a
means for focusing its efforts, the enforcement program identifies, in three year cycles, specific
environmental risks and noncompliance patterns as national priorities. The enforcement program
coordinates the selection of these priorities with programs and Regions within EPA, and with
states, local agencies, and tribes, in addition to soliciting public comment.
EPA uses a variety of integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's environmental
laws. This includes assistance to regulated entities to ensure fair notice and to make clear how to
comply with often complex regulations; compliance monitoring (i.e., monitoring compliance
status, identifying violations through on-site inspections, investigations, and collection and
analysis of compliance data); compliance incentives to motivate regulated facilities/companies to
252
-------
identify, disclose, and correct violations; and administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. In
addition to utilizing these tools, the enforcement program provides oversight of state and
delegated local agency performance to ensure that national environmental laws are enforced in a
consistent, equitable manner that protects public health and the environment. EPA also works
directly with Tribal governments to build their capacity to implement environmental
enforcement programs.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency is merging the Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance
Incentives program activities primarily into the Civil Enforcement program. Under the current
structure, individual enforcement tools are emphasized over addressing environmental problems
in the most effective way. The new model will allow us to focus on outcomes, tailoring our
approach to address the unique characteristics and requirements of individual cases. This new
model also will allow us to better integrate our efforts with the states, refining our role as state
capabilities evolve to best support the national enforcement program. Merging the Compliance
Assistance and Compliance Incentives programs within the enforcement program allows the
Agency to pursue the most effective approach and communicates our commitment to vigorous
enforcement.
In FY 2011, the Agency will aggressively implement its Civil Enforcement program, including
the national compliance and enforcement priorities established for FY 2011-2013. In FY 2009,
through its efforts in the core program and national priorities, EPA achieved more than $5 billion
in future pollution controls and pollution reduction commitments totaling nearly 600 million
pounds. The priority selection process is currently underway for the new cycle, which may lead
to changes in where EPA focuses its compliance and enforcement efforts. Certain existing
national priorities remain complex and challenging problems including Clean Water Act "Wet
Weather" discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of
Significant Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations at mineral processing facilities. Information on priorities,
regulatory requirements, enforcement alerts, and EPA results will be made available to the public
and the regulated community on EPA's Web sites.
The Agency will collaborate with states, tribes, and communities to aggressively reduce air
toxics pollution within at-risk communities. In FY 2011, EPA will select pilot communities to
evaluate whether they are at risk and reduce risks through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary
efforts. The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will target air monitoring,
inspections, and enforcement activities in pilot communities in support of this initiative. The
results from these pilots can then be adapted for widespread air toxic emission reductions in
communities through the country.
In addition, the Agency's enforcement program has consolidated its resources implementing the
Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 13508 into the Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay program
project. These resources will be used to target inspection and enforcement activities at key
regulated sectors (e.g., CAFOs, stormwater point sources, air deposition sources, etc.) identified
253
-------
as contributing significant amounts of nutrients, sediment, and other contaminants to impaired
watersheds in the Bay.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires increased use of renewable
fuels. In FY 2011, the Civil Enforcement program will help the regulated community understand
their statutory obligations under the EISA; inspect renewable fuel production facilities; monitor
compliance with renewable fuel requirements; monitor and enforce the credit trading program;
and, undertake administrative and judicial enforcement actions against violators.
EPA's Civil Enforcement program will continue to rely heavily on the Integrated Compliance
Information System to manage its compliance and enforcement activities by tracking the status
of all civil judicial and administrative enforcement actions, as well as compliance and
enforcement results.
The Civil Enforcement program also will support the Environmental Justice program by focusing
enforcement actions on industries that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in
communities that may be disproportionately exposed to risks and harms from the environment,
including minority and/or low-income areas. EPA works to protect these and other burdened
communities from adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs consistent
with environmental and civil rights laws.
The Federal Facilities Enforcement program will continue to expeditiously pursue enforcement
actions at Federal facilities where violations are discovered with a specific focus on non-
compliance.
Finally, as part of a President's SAVE award initiative, EPA plans to continue to update the
penalty inflationary rule on a regular basis in a timely fashion.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal,
addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix B).
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce, treat, or
eliminate air pollutants
through concluded
enforcement actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
480
FY2011
Target
480
Units
Million
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce, treat, or
eliminate water
pollutants through
concluded enforcement
actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
320
FY2011
Target
320
Units
Million
Pounds
254
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce, treat, or
eliminate toxics and
pesticides through
concluded enforcement
actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
3.8
FY2011
Target
3.8
Units
Million
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce, treat, or
eliminate hazardous
waste through
concluded enforcement
actions.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
6,500
FY2011
Target
6,500
Units
Million
Pounds
Results will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2010, and will be
reported in the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and the FY 2012
Congressional Justification.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4,222.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$34,714.07 +228.1 FTE) This increase reflects the Agency's efforts to realign the
enforcement program including 158.7 FTE from the Compliance Assistance program and
69.4 FTE from the Compliance Incentives program, along with associated payroll of
$31,913.0. The Agency's FY 2011 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget
reflects changes in how the Agency will accomplish its mission, a new cycle of national
priorities and outcomes, and the program's evolving role vis-a-vis the states.
• (+$2,160.07 +6.5 FTE) This increase supports the enforcement component of an
Agencywide effort to reduce air toxics pollution within at-risk communities and around
schools and other places where children may be exposed. These resources, including 6.5
FTE and associated payroll of $910.0, will be used to assess compliance with existing air
toxics emission rules and pursue enforcement actions, as appropriate, as part of the
Healthy Communities Initiative.
• (+$70.07 +0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities to improve National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance data.
• (+$375.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
255
-------
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity.
• (-$377.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$45.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to Information
Security program.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; CERCLA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; PPA; UMTRLWA; EPAct.
256
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$45,527.6
$9,058.1
$54,585.7
271.5
FY2010
Enacted
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$51,312.0
$8,142.0
$59,454.0
291.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,675.0
$76.0
$1,751.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute environmental violations
which seriously threaten public health and the environment. The Criminal Enforcement program
deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the regulated
community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines, for such
violations. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong message for potential violators, enhancing
aggregate compliance with laws and regulations.
The Criminal Enforcement program conducts investigations utilizing forensics techniques, and
may then request that cases be prosecuted. Where appropriate, it helps secure plea agreements or
sentencing conditions that will require defendants to undertake projects to improve
environmental conditions or develop environmental management systems to enhance
performance. The Agency is involved in all phases of the investigative process and works with
other law enforcement agencies to maintain an effective criminal enforcement program that is a
key component of the Agency's overall enforcement strategy. Cases are presented to the
Department of Justice for prosecution, with EPA special agents serving as key witnesses in the
proceedings.
The program also participates in task forces with state and local law enforcement, and provides
specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
FLETC provides one of the few opportunities for state, local, and Tribal environmental
enforcement professionals to obtain criminal investigation training.33
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to expand its identification and
investigation of cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impact while
balancing its overall case load of cases across all pollution statutes. The program will have
completed its three-year hiring strategy to increase the number of special agents to 200 by the
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
257
-------
end of FY 2010. These resources will allow the program to maximize its capacity in supporting
efforts to address complex environmental cases in FY 2011.
The Criminal Enforcement program is developing a methodology to "tier" significant cases
based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury,
human exposure, remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic
pollutants, continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation,
recidivist violator). Working with its international, Federal, state, and local law enforcement
partners, the program's emphasis on these priorities will yield greater environmental and public
health benefits and deter illegal corporate and individual behavior.
The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination
with the civil enforcement program to ensure that the enforcement program as a whole responds
to violations as effectively as possible. Enforcement is accomplished by employing an effective
regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate civil or criminal enforcement
responses for a particular violation and by taking criminal enforcement actions against long-term
or repeated significant non-compliers, where appropriate. Focusing on parallel proceedings and
other mechanisms that allow the Agency to use the most appropriate tools to address
environmental violations and crimes will also facilitate coordination.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of
Federal laws and regulations, as balanced with the flexibility to respond to Region-specific
environmental problems. Criminal enforcement has management oversight controls and national
policies in place to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under
Federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by evaluating all investigations from the
national perspective, overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with program priorities,
conducting regular "docket reviews" (detailed review of all open investigations in each EPA
Regional office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement
priorities, and developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and revising policies and
programs.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS). Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used
to systematically compile a profile of criminal cases, including the extent to which the cases
support Agencywide, program-specific, or Regional enforcement priorities. The program also
will seek to deter environmental crime by increasing the volume and quality of leads reported to
EPA by the public through the tips and complaints link on EPA's Web site and continue to use
the Fugitive Website to enlist the public and law enforcement agencies to help apprehend
defendants who have fled the country or are in hiding rather than face prosecution for alleged
environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which they have been found guilty. During
FY 2009, three fugitives were captured, and two more surrendered to law enforcement
authorities.
258
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of recidivism.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
<1
FY2011
Target
<1
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of closed cases
with criminal
enforcement
consequences
(indictment,
conviction, fine, or
penalty).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
33
FY2011
Target
33
Units
Percent
Results will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2010, and will be
reported in the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and the FY 2012
Congressional Justification.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,803.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$125.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity.
• (-$74.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$179.0) This decrease represents a modest redirection of contract resources supporting
the criminal enforcement program and will not negatively impact the program.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Act (RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); Pollution Prosecution Act; Title
18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Powers of Environmental
Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
259
-------
Enforcement Training
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,110.6
$776.9
$3,887.5
22.3
FY2010
Enacted
$3,278.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
($4,177.0)
-20.8
Program Project Description:
EPA is required by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 to provide environmental compliance
and enforcement training nationwide through the National Enforcement Training Institute
(NETI). The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core and
specialized enforcement courses, through NETI34, that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry
out the Agency's enforcement and compliance goals. Courses are provided to lawyers,
inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of government.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, NETI will be streamlined to enhance efficiencies in support of coordinating
enforcement training across the Agency, taking advantage of web-based tools. In addition, the
Enforcement Training program will be consolidated into the Compliance Monitoring program
which houses other training activities. Thus, NETI activities and associated resources will move
to the Compliance Monitoring program to serve as: 1) the central coordination point for training
that is planned and conducted by EPA offices; 2) the grant management for cooperative
agreements that provide training in the compliance and enforcement areas to state programs; 3)
the Legal Intern program; and 4) the lead source in conducting web-based enforcement training.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,372.07 -7.6 FTE) This reduction streamlines NETI by reducing support for classroom
training and increasing web-based training. The reduced resources include 7.6 FTE and
associated payroll of $1,052.0.
* For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
260
-------
• (-$1,906.07 -8.0 FTE) This reduction transfers the remaining Enforcement Training
activities to the Compliance Monitoring program. The transferred resources include 8
FTE and associated payroll of $1,107.0.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
261
-------
Environmental Justice
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,460.3
$624.6
$6,084.9
19.6
FY2010
Enacted
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$7,317.0
$806.0
$8,123.0
32.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$227.0
$11.0
$238.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by
communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. This commitment is fulfilled through the
Agency's efforts to give people a voice in decisions that impact their lives and to integrate
environmental justice in EPA programs, policies, and activities.
The EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) program facilitates EPA efforts to engage communities in
key decision-making processes and to integrate environmental justice considerations in EPA
programs, policies, and activities. The Agency conducts and supports work to "open its doors" to
communities of color, Native Americans, the poor, and other historically underrepresented
groups. EPA also promotes the active engagement of community groups, other Federal agencies,
states, local governments, and Tribal governments to recognize, support, and advance
environmental protection and public health for vulnerable communities. The program guides
EPA's efforts to empower vulnerable communities to protect themselves from environmental
harm and to build healthy and sustainable neighborhoods that enable disadvantaged groups to
participate in the new green economy through financial and technical assistance. The program
partners with other Agency programs to create scientific analytical methods, a legal foundation,
and public engagement practices that enable the incorporation of environmental justice
considerations in EPA's regulatory and policy decisions. Finally, the EJ program supports
Agency efforts to strengthen internal mechanisms to integrate environmental justice including
communication and training, performance management and accountability measures, and
workforce diversity.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue building strong relationships with historically underrepresented
communities, including tribes, communities of color, and the economically distressed to ensure
the integration of environmental justice principles in environmental decision-making. The EJ
program will convene two full meetings of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC), the Agency's Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee on environmental
justice issues. These meetings will be augmented by meetings of issue-specific workgroups and
262
-------
public teleconferences. The NEJAC is an important part of meeting the Agency's priority of
transparency and meaningful public involvement. Not only is the NEJAC charged with
providing advice to EPA on broad policy issue areas such as regulatory development, climate
change, fostering a green economy, and environmental justice integration, it will be called upon
to organize community input regarding specific Agency actions such as the development of
tools, monitoring plans, and community-based initiatives. Finally, the EJ program will support
the integration of environmental justice issues into the deliberations of other EPA FACA
committees.
In FY 2011, the EJ program will work to promote the integration of environmental justice
principles in the programs, policies, and activities of other Federal agencies. Pursuant to
Executive Order 12898, EPA will continue to convene the Interagency Working Group (IWG)
on Environmental Justice and will use this mechanism to provide and foster training and
technical assistance to other Federal agencies on the integration of environmental justice in their
programs. Moreover, the EJ program will use the IWG to identify collaborative opportunities to
support the achievement of environmentally sound and economically vibrant communities in
keeping with environmental justice and green economy goals.
EPA also will continue to manage its Environmental Justice Small Grants program, which assists
community-based organizations developing solutions to local environmental issues. Since its
inception in 1994, the EJ program has awarded nearly $35 million to more than 1,200
community-based organizations and others supporting efforts to address local environmental
and/or health issues.
EPA will develop customized on-line tools to support the integration of environmental justice
considerations into the daily work of the Agency. In FY 2011, the EJ program will release a new
mapping and public access tool - EJVIEW. Building upon the mapping functionality of the
Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool (EJGAT), EJVIEW will enable public
access to environmental, public health, demographic, and EPA grant and other environmental
justice project information. EJVIEW will enable the public to examine environmental conditions
in their communities, track progress of other grant-funded initiatives to address environmental
justice issues, and to input information about projects and issues of interest to their local
communities. This effort is aligned with a President's SAVE award proposal which in part
suggested the use of Geographic Information System for more efficient reporting of enforcement
information.
In FY 2011, EPA will intensify its efforts to incorporate environmental justice considerations in
the rulemaking process. An ongoing challenge for EPA has been to develop rules that
implement existing statutory authority while working to reduce disproportionate pollutant
burdens and cumulative impacts from multiple sources. In FY 2011, the EJ program will publish
an inventory of data and analytical methods suitable for decision-making with regard to
disproportionate environmental health impacts on minority, low-income populations. EPA will
also release draft technical guidance to support the integration of environmental justice
considerations in analyses that support EPA's actions.
In FY 2011, EPA's EJ program will lead the integration of environmental justice considerations
into EPA's planning and performance measurement processes. In FY 2011, the program will
263
-------
issue guidance that will support Agency efforts to identify disproportionately burdened minority,
low income, and Tribal populations; establish commitments to address them; and measure and
report progress.
In addition, the EJ program supports each EPA Regional office and program office's efforts to
implement a biennial "EJ Action Plan" that provides a roadmap for enhancing the integration of
environmental justice into its daily work. These plans will strengthen the Agency's
environmental justice integration efforts by establishing measurable environmental justice
commitments from every program and regional office that will be tracked for their contributions
to improvements in minority, low-income, Tribal, and other disproportionately burdened
populations. In addition, the EJ program will continue to maintain an inventory of successful
efforts to track and report progress in achieving results in communities disproportionately
impacted.
In FY 2011, the EJ program will continue to assist program offices and other environmental
organizations and government agencies in the delivery of customized training to increase the
capacity of their personnel to effectively address issues of environmental justice. This training
includes both in-person presentations and online training. Specific topics will include
environmental justice integration principles, incorporating environmental justice in regulatory
analysis, and discussions of pertinent statutory authorities.
Performance Targets:
EPA's EJ program performance is reflected in other EPA national program results that benefit
disproportionately burdened minority, low-income, and tribal populations. Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$256.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (-$36.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$7.0) This change reflects a modest increase in contracts and grants to support the
Agency's Environmental Justice program.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; NEPA;
Pollution Prevention Act.
264
-------
NEPA Implementation
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$15,249.8
$15,249.8
116.4
FY2010
Enacted
$18,258.0
$18,258.0
117.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$18,524.0
$18,524.0
117.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$266.0
$266.0
-0.2
Program Project Description:
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act, the NEPA Implementation program reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that
evaluate the anticipated environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions, including
options for avoiding or mitigating them while making the comments available to the public and
allowing public input. The program manages the Agency's official filing activity for all Federal
EISs, in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council on Environmental
Quality. The program also manages the review of Environmental Impact Assessments of non-
governmental activities in Antarctica, in accordance with the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and
Conservation Act (ASTCA).
In addition, the program fosters cooperation with other Federal agencies to ensure compliance
with applicable environmental statutes, promotes better integration of pollution prevention and
ecological risk assessment elements into their programs, and provides technical assistance in
developing projects that prevent adverse environmental impacts. The Agency targets high
impact Federal program areas, such as energy/transportation-related projects and water resources
projects. The program also develops policy and technical guidance on issues related to NEPA,
the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and relevant Executive
Orders (EOs).35
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with other Federal agencies to streamline and to improve
NEPA processes. Work also will focus on a number of key areas such as review and comment
on on-shore and off-shore liquid natural gas facilities, coal bed methane development and other
energy-related projects; nuclear power/hydro-power plant licensing/re-licensing; highway and
airport expansion; military expansion in Guam; flood control and port development; and
management of national forests and public lands. The program will continue to use the web-
based NEPAssist environmental assessment tool, which assists Federal, state, and local agencies
' For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.
265
-------
to identify nationally/regionally significant environmental features/resources and streamline their
respective environmental review processes. In FY 2011, EPA also will be conducting work
related to the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan. In addition, EPA will continue
its successful collaboration efforts with Federal land management agencies in the west to ensure
the growing number of oil and natural gas development projects in that area do not cause
significant adverse air quality impacts.
Special emphasis will continue on implementing EPA's NEPA responsibilities with respect to
projects funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The ARRA
increased EPA's involvement with other Federal Agencies (including scoping and collaboration
efforts) on Federal projects that required environmental review by EPA pursuant to Section 309
of the Clean Air Act and NEPA. The additional personnel resources provided in FY 2010 will
enable EPA to meet these increased environmental review responsibilities, which will help with
the expeditious approval and implementation of Federal economic stimulus projects.
The NEPA Implementation program also guides EPA's own compliance with NEPA, other
applicable statutes and EOs, and related environmental justice requirements. In FY 2011, at least
90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment or EIS requirements
(e.g., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES permits, and EPA
facilities) are expected to result in no significant environmental impact.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$557.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$303.07 -0.7 FTE) This change, including $94.0 in associated payroll, represents
increases provided in the FY 2010 enacted budget but not maintained in FY 2011. These
resources supported the NEPA compliance and Clean Air Act Section 309 review for
regulatory efforts and programmatic Environmental Impact Statements associated with
the significantly revised policies and approaches to Appalachian coal mining.
• (+$67.0/ +0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities to support the
Agency's energy-related NEPA reviews.
• (-$55.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; EO 12898.
266
-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
267
-------
Great Lakes Restoration
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$475,000.0
$475,000.0
83.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$300,000.0
$300,000.0
83.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($175,000.0)
($175,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Great Lakes are the largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 20 percent of
the world's surface freshwater and accounting for 84 percent of the surface freshwater in the
United States. The watershed includes two nations, 8 U.S. states, a Canadian province, more
than 40 tribes, and more than one-tenth of the U.S. population. The goal of the Agency's Great
Lakes program is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the
Clean Water Act. Extensive work of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and its wide variety
of stakeholders and non-governmental partners culminated in the 2005 Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy).
In 2009, the President announced a new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, committing the
Federal government to significantly advance Great Lakes protection and restoration pursuant to
that work. EPA has led the Interagency Task Force in development of a FY2010-FY2014 Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative draft Action Plan (Action Plan). The draft Action Plan, built upon
the foundation of the GLRC Strategy and developed with stakeholder input from meetings
throughout the Great Lakes, will target the most significant environmental problems in the Great
Lakes ecosystem. The Action Plan will be an action driver, articulating the most significant
ecosystem problems and efforts to address them in five major focus areas:
• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, including pollution prevention and cleanup of
the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes;
• Invasive Species, including efforts to institute a "zero tolerance policy" toward new
invasions;
• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, including a targeted geographic focus
on high priority watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban, and
agricultural lands;
• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration, including bringing wetlands and other
habitat back to life, and the first comprehensive assessment of the entire 530 thousand
268
-------
acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands for the purpose of strategically targeting restoration
and protection efforts in a science-based manner; and
• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships,
including the implementation of goal- and results-based accountability measures, learning
initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships.
EPA will release a final Action Plan in late February 2010.
Pursuant to the Initiative, EPA works with its partners to select the best combination of programs
and projects for Great Lakes protection and restoration, using principles and criteria such as:
• Ability to achieve strategic and measurable environmental outcomes;
• Feasibility for prompt implementation, for achieving visible results soon, and the ability
to leverage resources; and
• Opportunities for inter-agency/inter-organizational coordination and collaboration.
Funds will be used to strategically implement both Federal projects and projects with states,
tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Projects and activities pursuant to the
Initiative will be at multiple scales (local, lake-wide, and basin-wide). (Note: These funds will
not be directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed under the Clean Water or
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program). Funding will be distributed directly by EPA via
interagency agreements to other Federal agencies for subsequent use and distribution. Grants will
generally be issued competitively. Agencies will be expected to maintain their base level36 of
Great Lakes activities and to identify new activities and projects that will support the Initiative's
environmental outcomes.
Recognizing that results from the first year of funding will not be available immediately, EPA
expects to make necessary program adjustments at appropriate times to maximize results.
Priority-setting, coordination, and oversight will be done through oversight groups of the
Interagency Task Force. Transparency and accountability are priorities of the Initiative. EPA will
also ensure appropriate coordination with Canada as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
This second year of the Initiative identifies $300 million for programs and projects strategically
chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem
through direct program implementation by EPA and Interagency Task Force members and by the
issuance of grants and other agreements with states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other
organizations. Programs and projects expected to be initiated in FY 2011 were selected in a
planning process conducted through the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Specific efforts
36 As a starting point for identifying their base, Agencies were asked to use the March 2008 OMB Great Lakes Restoration
Crosscut Report to Congress.
269
-------
were made to determine how second year funding could accomplish the goals and objectives
identified in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan, recognizing each agency's
mission and strengths. A specific emphasis has been placed upon implementation. This process
includes competitive grant programs to implement the Initiative by funding states, tribes, and
other partners. Interagency Task Force members plan to work together to issue requests for
proposals as soon as possible in order that some grant awards could be used during the 2011 field
season.
EPA has led the Interagency Task Force in development of provisional funding targets. Upon
receiving the FY 2011 appropriation for the Initiative, EPA will determine final funding targets
and will develop a final 2011 funding plan, including grant programs. Final targets will be
informed by experience with FY 2010 funding and needs for priorities such as keeping Asian
Carp out of the Great Lakes. EPA, following consultation with members of the Interagency Task
Force, will select the programs and projects for funding. Key activities expected to advance
environmental progress within each of the Initiative's focus areas are described below.
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern. Persistent toxic substances, such as mercury and
PCBs, are still present in the Great Lakes at levels which warrant fish consumption advisories in
all five lakes. Thirty (30) US Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) remain degraded with an
estimated 43 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments. Ongoing sources of persistent toxic
substances to the Great Lakes include releases from contaminated bottom sediments, industrial
and municipal point sources; nonpoint sources including atmospheric deposition, agricultural and
urban runoff; contaminated groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals within the Lakes.
Principal actions proposed to protect the Great Lakes from toxic substances, clean up
contaminated sediments, and restore AOCs include:
• AOC Restoration. EPA will issue grants to states and other stakeholders to fund projects
in the AOCs to restore beneficial uses. Through the Legacy Act, four to six sediment
remediation projects will commence, and will be supplemented with strategic
navigational channel dredging by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE), habitat
enhancements by US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and brownfield restoration and green
infrastructure developments by the US Forest Service (USFS). FY 2011 funding of these
activities is expected over time to result in remediation of 700 thousand cubic yards of
contaminated sediments and deli sting of 1-2 AOCs;
• Collections. EPA will award grants to states, tribes, and local governments to collect up
to 5 million pounds of e-waste, 5 million pills of unwanted medicines, and 500 thousand
pounds of hazardous waste, including mercury, PCBs, and unused pesticides;
• Human Health/Safe Fish Consumption. EPA and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) will issue grants to states and tribes to enhance and improve
existing state/Tribal fish consumption advisory programs. Federal agencies will issue
grants to evaluate the net risk and benefits of consuming Great Lakes fish. Long term
results are expected to include measurable declines in mercury blood levels;
270
-------
• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). EPA will award contracts to support EPA and
state efforts to develop toxic TMDLs within the Great Lakes Basin. The TMDLs will
define the extent of toxic contamination, including mercury, PCBs, dioxin and mirex
throughout the basin. EPA will continue to support Michigan and New York's efforts to
define the extent of mercury, PCB, dioxin, and/or mirex pollution, and its potential
sources, in over 200 impaired Great Lakes sub watersheds. Long term results are
expected to include TMDLs addressing over 200 impaired watersheds which identify
pollutant loading capacities to guide pollutant reduction efforts in support of plans for
restoring polluted watersheds; and
• Early Warning System to Detect New Toxic Threats. To inform management
interventions in a timely fashion, Federal agencies, including EPA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USFWS, the US Geological Survey (USGS),
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the National Park
Service (NPS) will continue to implement an early warning system to detect new toxic
threats to the Great Lakes, utilizing enhanced monitoring programs for Great Lakes fish,
birds, mussels, and human biomonitoring, as well as sediments, tributary source loads,
and air deposition studies. Agencies will also assess toxicant effects on food web
dynamics and ecological health for key aquatic communities such as lake sturgeon and
benthic invertebrates. As a result, agencies will work through the Great Lakes Binational
Toxics Strategy to develop solutions and remedial responses.
EPA has set targets and will continue to track progress for the following key measures, some of
which are cumulative:
Measure
Number of Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes where all management
actions necessary for delisting have
been implemented (cumulative).
AOC beneficial use impairments
removed (cumulative).
Cubic yards (in millions) of
contaminated sediment remediated in
the Great Lakes (cumulative).
Cumulative percentage decline for
the long term trend in average
concentrations of PCBs in Great
Lakes fish.
Baseline
Baseline: 1 AOC
Baseline: HBUIs
Baseline: 5.5 million cubic yards
(2007 )
Baseline: Concentrations at U.S.
stations inL SU [0.71 ppm], MI
[1.5ppm],HU[.78ppm],ER
[1.2 ppm] and ON [1.2 ppm].37
2010 Target
1 AOC
20 BUIs
6.3 million
cubic yards
10% decline
2011 Target
3 AOCs
26 BUIs
7.2 million
cubic yards
14.% decline
Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located
wholly within Canada; and 5 that are shared by both countries. Since 1987, the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) has tracked the 31 AOCs that are within the U.S. or shared
with Canada. On June 19, 2006, the Oswego River, New York's AOC, became the first U.S.
AOC to be officially removed from the list of U.S. AOCs. Through the Great Lakes Restoration
37 2000 Baseline.
271
-------
Initiative, there will be renewed efforts to de-list (clean up) the U.S. AOCs. In 2009 and 2010
States are developing targets for restoration of beneficial use impairments and long term targets
for de-listing of AOCs. Concurrently, projects such as Legacy Act sediment remediation
projects and WRDA projects, are being identified, and strategically implemented to help achieve
those targets.
Total sediment remediation in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes varies from year to year based
on factors such as available funding and match, the number and size of projects, and the
possibility of enforcement actions in various EPA programs. The Great Lakes Legacy Act
allows EPA to make steadier progress toward addressing the remaining contaminated sediments
in Great Lakes AOCs.
Following long-term trends, average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye
samples are expected to continue to decline at a rate of 5 percent annually, on average, at
monitored sites, reflecting continual improvement in Great Lakes health. Also, following long-
term trends, average concentrations of toxic chemicals (PCBs) in the air at monitored sites in the
Great Lakes basin are expected to continue to decline at a rate of 7 percent annually.
Invasive Species. Progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly undermined
by the effects of non-native invasive species. Over 180 non-native species now exist in the Great
Lakes. The most invasive of these propagate and spread, ultimately degrading habitat, out-
competing native species, and short-circuiting food webs. New invasive species (such as the
Asian Carp which is poised to invade the system) can be introduced into the Great Lakes region
through various pathways, including: commercial shipping, canals and waterways, trade of live
organisms, and activities of recreational and resource users. The Great Lakes are the aquatic
gateway to most of the interior United States. Once invasive species establish a foothold in the
Great Lakes, they are virtually impossible to eradicate and have the potential to spread to much
of the rest of the country; controlling species in the Great Lakes will slow or eliminate the spread
to other regions. Thus, invasive species still need to be controlled to maintain the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem and to reduce risk to the interior U.S. Principal actions proposed to
prevent new introductions of non-native invasive species in the Great Lakes basin and stop the
further spread of invasives within and out of the Great Lakes basin include:
• Prevention. EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, FWS, NOAA, and the Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration (DOT-MARAD) will fund the further
development of up to three ballast water treatment systems for use in fresh water
ecosystems by supporting the use of laboratory, land-based, and ship-board testing and
coordination with the maritime industry. Refinement of sampling methodologies for
treated ballast water will also continue. ACOE and USGS will identify canals and
waterways that may spread invasive species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River watershed so that early actions, such as those necessary to prevent Asian Carp from
entering the Great Lakes, may be adopted to reduce this risk. NFS will establish boat
washing facilities at National Parks and USFS will deploy portable boat washing units to
limit the spread of invasive species by recreational boaters; competitive funding available
from EPA will help local communities establish similar facilities;
272
-------
• Early Detection and Control. EPA, USFWS, DOT-MARAD, USDA-APHIS, and
USGS will begin implementation of coordinated monitoring surveys to detect new
invaders in Great Lakes locations that have a high probability of invasion. NOAA, EPA,
and FWS will identify areas that have a high probability of invasion, which will help
managers prioritize locations for targeted EDRR monitoring. USFWS, USGS, and
ACOE will refine and pilot promising invasive species control methods, and EPA will
establish competitive grant programs for the development of up to three new control
technologies. USFWS will support on-the-ground implementation of Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plans for each Great Lake state, including four rapid response
exercises/actions to demonstrate and test multi-agency response capabilities. USFS will
lead the establishment of Cooperative Weed (Invasive plant) Management Areas and
implement control on 100 acres in the Great Lakes states in coordination with Federal
and state agencies and Great Lakes communities. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission
(GLFC) will pilot new sea lamprey control methods using pheromones, ensuring that
such implementation would not reduce existing sea lamprey control efforts. ACOE will
enhance the use of barriers to further reduce Sea Lamprey populations; and
• Working with User Groups. USFWS, USFS, and NFS will enhance education and
outreach to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species through recreational
uses such as hunting, fishing and recreational boating, reaching 300,000 Great Lakes
users. NOAA and USGS will continue to enhance their existing joint public on-line
database, GLANSIS, by adding or enhancing information on ecosystem impacts of over
180 listed invaders and range-expanding invaders, and will begin adding potential high-
risk future invaders identified through risk-assessment and niche-matching studies. NFS
will work in concert with neighboring communities to prevent the spread of viral
hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) pathogen and other organisms to National Park resources.
EPA has set targets and will continue to track progress for the following key measures, some of
which are cumulative:
Measure
Number of normative species newly
detected in the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Acres managed for populations of
invasive species controlled to a
target level, (cumulative)
Number of multi-agency rapid
response plans established, mock
exercises to practice responses
carried out under those plans,
and/or actual response actions.
(cumulative)
Baseline
Baseline: 1.3 species
per year
Baseline: 0 acres
Baseline: 0 rapid
response
exercises/actions
2010 Target
1.1 species per year
1,000 acres
4 rapid response
exercises/actions
2011 Target
1.0 species per year
1,500 acres
7 rapid response
exercises/actions
The number of newly detected nonnative species in the Great Lakes ecosystem will decrease as a
result of prevention efforts. Areas managed for the control and reduction of populations of
invasive species will increase. Agencies will work together to develop Aquatic Nuisance Species
273
-------
management plans with rapid response capabilities and to conduce rapid response exercises and
actions.
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution. Great Lakes nearshore water quality has
become degraded, as evidenced by eutrophication resulting from excessive nutrients; harmful
algal blooms; the green algae Cladophora washing ashore to make unsightly, odiferous rotting
mats on beaches; outbreaks of avian botulism; and advisories at swimming beaches. The
environmental stressors causing these problems include excessive nutrient loadings from both
point and nonpoint sources; bacteria and other pathogens responsible for beach closures and
outbreaks of botulism; shoreline development and hardening, which disrupt habitat and alter
nutrient and contaminant runoff; and agricultural practices which increase nutrient and sediment
loadings. Nonpoint sources are now the primary contributors of many pollutants, but control
strategies to date have been inadequate to deliver the degree of stream and lake restoration
necessary for the protection and maintenance of the Great Lakes. However, implementation of
agricultural or other watershed best management practices can have multiple benefits, including
simultaneous reductions in runoff of soils, nutrients, and pesticides. Principal actions proposed
to improve the health of Great Lakes nearshore areas and reduce nonpoint source pollution to
levels that do not impair nearshore Great Lakes waters include:
• Identify and Remediate Sources of Impairments to Nearshore Waters. To contribute
to the reduction or elimination of the number and severity of incidences of ecosystem
disruptions, including Cladophora growth, harmful algal blooms (HABs), botulism, and
other issues associated with eutrophication, NRCS, USFS, ACOE, NFS, USGS, and EPA
will collaborate to: understand linkages between nearshore impairments and their causal
agents; enhance or implement practices to reduce the causal agents, including the export
of nutrients and soils to the nearshore waters; establish and implement total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) for phosphorus; and model and evaluate tributary transport of
sediments and nutrients;
• Improve Public Health Protection at Beaches. To assist local health officials in better
protecting beach-goers, NOAA, USGS, and EPA will collaborate with state, local and
Tribal governments to: conduct sanitary surveys at beaches that were under advisory or
closed 5 or more days in 2008 to identify sources of contamination; remediate identified
sources; increase the effectiveness of monitoring for pathogens; model environmental
conditions likely to result in elevated levels of bacteria; and enhance communications to
the public about daily swimming conditions;
• Targeted, Watershed Restoration. NRCS, USFS, ACOE, NFS, and EPA, in close
collaboration with state programs, will address high priority watersheds to: strategically
target where on-the-ground actions can be most effective; provide supplemental funding
to enhance existing conservation programs and management procedures; implement
actions to control nonpoint source runoff, erosion and sedimentation or to otherwise
improve conditions on a watershed scale; protect forest ecosystem services; and foster
green infrastructure projects, especially for stormwater management; and
274
-------
• Generate Critical Information for Protecting Nearshore Health. EPA, NFS, USFS,
USGS, and NOAA will collaborate to: assess the status and trends of nearshore water
conditions, tributaries and groundwater; develop and implement indicators of land use
change, agricultural lands, and aquatic nearshore conditions and identify endpoints that
reflect watershed stressors; identify and map artificial coastal structures and marinas and
evaluate potential contributions to nearshore impairments; and develop education and
outreach programs to increase awareness and understanding of various Great Lakes
issues.
EPA has set targets and will continue to track progress for the following key measures, some of
which are cumulative:
Measure
Five year average annual loadings of soluble
reactive phosphorus38 (metric tons per year)
from tributaries draining targeted
watersheds.
Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria
standards 95% or more of beach days.
Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
conservation practices implemented to
reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide
loading.39
Baseline
Baseline: 2003-2007
Fox River: 2 12
Saginaw R: 133
Maumee R: 623
Genesee R: *
St. Louis R: *
Other TBD: *
Baseline: 86%
(2006)
Baseline:
165,000 acres
2010 Target
0% reduction
86%
2% increase
2011 Target
0.5% reduction
87%
8% increase
* Baseline information will be developed.
The Initiative will support restoration efforts (e.g., agricultural best management practices)
which will reduce loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus; watersheds for the Maumee River,
Fox River, St. Louis, Genesee, and Saginaw River are expected to be among those targeted. To
better protect public health at Great Lakes beaches, the Initiative will support efforts to identify
sources of beach contamination and to remediate identified sources. To reduce erosion,
nutrients, and/or pesticide loading, the Initiative will support an increase in implementation of
USDA conservation practices.
Habitat and Wildlife. A multitude of threats affect the health of Great Lakes habitats and
wildlife: habitat destruction and degradation due to development; competition from invasive
species; the alteration of natural lake level fluctuations and flow regimes from dams and other
control structures; toxic compounds from urban development, poor land management practices
and non-point sources; and, habitat fragmentation. This has led to an altered food web, a loss of
biodiversity, and poorly functioning ecosystems. The principal actions proposed to protect and
restore Great Lakes habitat and wildlife include:
38 Total phosphorus will also be measured.
39 This measure reflects annual (not cumulative) implementation of conservation practices (from the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and Conservation Technical Assistance Program) that will contribute to long term improvements of the listed
outcomes.
275
-------
• Protecting and Restoring Native Species and Habitats Agencies will share data and
management priorities as well as implement protection and restoration actions to enhance
native species and habitats. Federal agencies (ACOE, BIA, EPA, FHWA, FWS, GLFC,
NOAA, NPS, NRCS, USFS, USGS) will begin implementation of projects directly and
through grants and other agreements to reduce sedimentation and nutrient inputs, restore
natural hydrological regimes, improve water quality, and protect and restore habitats
including Great Lakes wetlands, islands, beaches, sand dunes, and other coastal and
upland habitats. Long term results will include restoration and protection of up to 5,000
acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats; improved ecosystem processes and
functions; and, enhanced critical migratory bird habitat;
• Improving Aquatic Ecosystem Resiliency. USFS, FWS, USGS, ACOE, and NFS will
begin implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to
replace large woody debris in floodplains and streams, replace barrier culverts to restore
fish passage and stream/river connectivity, and restore forested edges in riparian areas.
Long term results will include benefits to populations of keystone species such as lake
sturgeon, brook trout and migratory birds; removal of 50 fish passage barriers; protection
and restoration of 2,500 acres of riparian and wetland habitats; and restoration of 500
stream miles for fish passage and stabilization of stream banks;
• Managing Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. FWS, USFS, and USGS will
begin implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to
benefit rare, threatened and endangered Great Lakes species to address actions identified
in species recovery and management plans. Long term results are expected to include
progress toward restoration of populations of targeted species; quantification of landscape
habitat needs for certain depleted migratory bird species; and completion of fisheries
population assessments for lake trout and lake sturgeon. BIA, ACOE, and FWS will issue
grants and partnership agreements to Tribal organizations for projects to protect and
restore Tribal wetlands and culturally significant species such as wild rice, resulting in
the restoration of wetlands; and
• Tracking Progress on Coastal Wetlands Restoration. EPA, with partners, will collect
data for birds, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, plants, wetland extent and type, and water
chemistry in 20% of US coastal wetlands and provide summary information to decision
makers. A combination of direct implementation and grants and other agreements with
states, Tribal agencies and universities will result in the first comprehensive baseline of
the health of US Great Lakes coastal wetlands. New strategies for restoring coastal
wetland functions will be developed and restoration success and compliance evaluated to
strengthen current and future wetland restoration projects by USGS. NFS and FWS will
begin restoration of coastal and inland wetlands.
EPA has set targets and will continue to track progress for the following key measures, some of
which are cumulative:
276
-------
Measure
% of populations of native aquatic
non-threatened and endangered species
self-sustaining in the wild.
(cumulative)
Number of acres of wetlands and
wetland-associated uplands protected,
restored and enhanced, (cumulative)
Number of species delisted due to
recovery.
Number of acres of coastal, upland,
and island habitats protected, restored
and enhanced, (cumulative)
Baseline
Baseline (2009): 27%
39/147*
populations
Baseline: 0
Baseline (2009): 0
species
Baseline: 0
2010 Target
33%
48/147 populations
5,000 acres
0
15,000 acres
2011 Target
35%
52/147 populations
7,500 acres
1
20,000 acres
* Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate species that are self-sustaining in the wild.
Denominator: total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations.
Habitat restoration and assessment efforts through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
including activities such as fish passage improvements and invasive species management, will be
strategically implemented throughout the basin to increase the total number of healthy aquatic
populations. As a result of these enhanced efforts, populations of Great Lakes aquatic species,
such as lake trout, sturgeon and brook trout, that are currently not self-sustaining in the wild, are
expected to achieve self-sustaining status. In 2011, an additional four populations are projected
to have the capability of maintaining themselves independently without continued
supplementation.
The number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands and of coastal, upland and
island habitats protected, restored and enhanced is dependent on the work of 11 Federal agencies.
The agencies will provide funding through competitive grants and contracts for projects to states,
tribes, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, universities and for-profit entities.
Although the quality of the projects and the quantity of project acres is dependent on who applies
for funding and the strength of individual projects, it is expected that 2,5000 wetland and
wetland-associated upland and 5,000 coastal, upland and island acres will be protected, restored
and enhanced as targeted for FY 2011.
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships.
Oversight and coordination are critical to the success of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as
are a comprehensive and efficient accountability system and establishment of well-defined
metrics to track progress. Also critical are activities to fill gaps in baselines, measure and
monitor key indicators of ecosystem function, evaluate restoration progress, and provide decision
makers with the information they need. This information needs to be based on best available
science, and compiled and communicated. Outreach, education, and partnerships are also crucial
in the effort to restore the Great Lakes. All of these elements are needed for informed decisions
and wise investments for results. Principal efforts in order to enhance information for decision
making include:
• Develop Great Lakes Restoration Accountability System. EPA will complete
development of and begin implementation of a transparency and accountability system
277
-------
for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, including easy access to information and
linkages to planning, budgeting, grant offering, and results;
• Implement Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). With and through the LaMPs,
partner agencies will implement LaMP programs and projects, using public forums to
assist with the transfer and dissemination of information;
• Measure and Evaluate the Health of the Great Lakes Ecosystem using the Best
Available Science. Through direct program implementation, grants, and other
agreements, Federal agencies will enhance existing programs that measure and assess the
physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes, including the connecting
channels. EPA in coordination with other Federal and state agencies will develop and
implement a statistically valid assessment, using a probability-based design, of Great
Lakes water resources, including the nearshore environment that coincides with intensive
coordinated science and monitoring efforts for the lakes and builds on the efforts of
EPA's National Coastal Condition Assessment. EPA and USGS will advance
development and implementation of science-based indicators to better assess and provide
a better measure of accountability of actions to improve the health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. EPA will also initiate a biological assessment of the Great Lakes tributaries.
EPA will continue to implement the Coordinated Science and Monitoring Initiative with
Environment Canada to address Lake-specific science and monitoring needs and to
include critical studies in Lake Superior in 2011, followed by Lakes Huron, Ontario, Erie,
and Michigan in consecutive years. Participation in the Global Earth Observing System
of Systems by NOAA, EPA, USGS, USFWS, and other partners will enhance Great
Lakes decision-making. EPA will begin to address basin wide needs such as
infrastructure for uniform data quality management and real time information access.
USFS will support monitoring and analysis of Great Lakes forest resources and
establishment of critical wildlife goals and objectives for LaMPs. Ecosystem goals and
objectives will be implemented through watershed studies of water levels and flow by
ACOE. USGS will develop and implement efforts using remote sensing to obtain the
geospatial data that is needed to support science and decision making. NOAA, EPA,
USGS, USFWS, NFS, and DOT will implement a coordinated interagency approach for
addressing the key scientific priorities needed to fully assess the impacts climate change
may have on the Great Lakes ecosystem and to better adapt to those impacts. NOAA,
USGS, and EPA will also work closely together to enhance ecosystem and watershed
predicative capabilities providing the necessary link between science and management;
• Support Great Lakes Restoration Education. EPA will develop the coordination
mechanism(s) for Great Lakes restoration education efforts that meet state and other
relevant learning standards, including identification of the suite of participating educators
and facilities; and
• Enhance Partnerships. EPA will lead and support enhanced coordination and
collaboration among Great Lakes partners to ensure that Initiative actions, projects, and
programs are efficient, effective, and supportive of the US- Canada Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. The Department of State will support the Great Lakes Water Quality
278
-------
Agreement through binational studies or reference(s) on issues that will enhance
cooperation with Canadian partners on issues of binational importance for the Great
Lakes. Partnerships will be advanced and resources and capabilities leveraged through
existing collaborative efforts such as the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and its
Regional Working Group, the US-Canada Binational Executive Committee, the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, the US-Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy, Lakewide Management Plans, the Coordinated Science Monitoring Initiative
and Great Lakes Fisheries management. The NPS will implement sustainability and
stewardship programs for protected areas and gateway communities.
EPA has set targets and will continue to track progress for the following key measures, some of
which are cumulative:
Measure (long term)
Improvement in the overall aquatic ecosystem health of the
Great Lakes using the Great Lakes 40-point scale.40
Baseline
Baseline: 20 points
2011 Target
23.4 points
The overall Great Lakes ecosystem condition, as measured by a Great Lakes Index, will be
reported in 2011. The Great Lakes Index is a Strategic target and long term measure. It uses
select Great Lakes ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC
sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water
quality, and air toxics deposition) and is based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator, where
1 is poor and 5 is good. Improvements in the index and measures would indicate that fewer
toxics are entering the food chain; ecosystem and human health is better protected; fish are safer
to eat; water is safer to drink; and beaches are safer for swimming. By 2011, the overall
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes as measured by the Great Lakes Index will improve to 23.4
points on a scale of 40 (the current baseline is 20 points).
The following proposed provisional allocations have been developed by EPA in consultation
with the Interagency Task Force, subject to factors such as funding availability, statutory
authority, agreed-upon overhead provisions, development of appropriate accountability
mechanisms, and anticipated adjustments resulting from experience with utilization of FY 2010
funding:
This is an existing measure under the Government Performance and Results Act.
279
-------
Summary of Proposed FY2011 Provisional Allocations by Focus Areas
(thousands of dollars)
Agency
DHS-
USCG
DOC-
NOAA
DOD-
USACE
DOI-
BIA
DOI-
NPS
DOI-
USFWS
DOI-
USGS
DOS-
GLFC
DOS-
IJC
DOT-
FHWA
DOT-
MARAD
EPA
HHS-
ATSDR
USDA-
APHIS
USDA-
NRCS
USDA-
USFS
Totals
% Share
Toxic Substances
and Areas of
Concern
554
790
5,492
0
840
2,993
1,352
0
0
0
0
85,187
3,048
0
0
1,108
101,364
33.79%
Invasive
Species
1,663
1,197
1,524
0
1,623
8,512
1,296
3,880
0
0
2,633
17,429
0
1,663
554
2,757
43,303
14.91%
Nearshore
Health and
Nonpoint
Source
Pollution
0
1,496
7,953
0
691
0
1,427
0
0
0
0
26,129
0
0
16,428
277
54,402
18.13%
Habitat and
Wildlife
Protection and
Restoration
0
8,867
8,147
2,771
1,108
20,707
2,217
277
0
1,386
0
10,269
0
0
1,108
3,519
60,377
20.13%
Accountability,
Education,
Monitoring,
Evaluation,
Communication, and
Partnerships
0
3,076
499
0
397
277
3,990
0
166
0
0
30,000
0
0
222
499
40,554
13.04%
Totals
2,217
15,427
23,615
2,771
4,660
32,489
10,282
4,157
166
1,386
2,633
169,014
3,048
1,663
18,312
8,161
300,000
100%
% Share
0.74%
5.14%
7.87%
0.92%
1 .55%
10.83%
3.43%
1 .39%
0.06%
0.46%
0.88%
56.34%
1 .02%
0.55%
6.10%
2.72%
100%
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of Areas of
Concern in the Great
Lakes where all
management actions
necessary for delisting
have been
implemented
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
1
FY2011
Target
3
Units
AOCs
280
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of nonnative
species newly detected
in the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
1.1
FY2011
Target
1
Units
Number
species
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Acres managed for
populations of invasive
species controlled to a
target level
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY2011
Target
1,500
Units
Number of
Acres
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of beaches
meeting bacteria
standards 95 percent or
more of beach days.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
86
FY2011
Target
87
Units
Percent
Beaches
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of multi-
agency rapid response
plans established,
mock exercises to
practice responses
carried out under those
plans, and/or actual
response actions
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
4
FY2011
Target
7
Units
Number
Responses/Plans
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Five-year average
annual loadings of
soluble reactive
phosphorus (metric
tons per year) from
tributaries draining
targeted watersheds.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
0.5
Units
Average
T naHinos
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Acres in Great Lakes
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
2
FY2011
Target
8%
Units
Percent
281
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
watershed with USDA
conservation practices
implemented to reduce
erosion, nutrients,
and/or pesticide
loading.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
increase
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of populations
of native aquatic non-
threatened and
endangered species
self-sustaining in the
wild (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
48/147
FY2011
Target
35%-
52/147
populations
Units
Number of
species
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of acres of
wetlands and wetland-
associated uplands
protected, restored and
enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
5,000
FY2011
Target
7,500
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of acres of
coastal, upland, and
island habitats
protected, restored and
enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
15,000
FY2011
Target
20,000
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per cubic yard of
contaminated
sediments remediated
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
200
FY 2009
Actual
122
FY 2010
Target
200
FY2011
Target
200
Units
Dollars/Cubic
Yard
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Beneficial
Use Impairments
removed within Areas
of Concern.
FY 2009
Target
21
FY 2009
Actual
12
FY 2010
Target
20
FY2011
Target
26
Units
BUIs
Removed
282
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve the overall
ecosystem health of
the Great Lakes by
preventing water
pollution and
protecting aquatic
systems.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
23.4
Units
Scale
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cubic yards of
contaminated sediment
remediated (cumulative
from 1997) in the
Great Lakes.
FY 2009
Target
5.9
FY 2009
Actual
6
FY 2010
Target
6.3
FY2011
Target
7.2
Units
Cubic Ycirds
(million)
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
decline for the long-
term trend in
concentrations of PCBs
in whole lake trout and
walleye samples.
FY 2009
Target
5
FY 2009
Actual
6
FY 2010
Target
10
FY2011
Target
14
Units
Percent
Decline
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of species
delisted due to
recovery.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
0
FY2011
Target
1
Units
Species
Although existing Great Lakes performance measures reflect the results of multiple EPA base
programs and the activities of other organizations, some changes are expected to the measures as
the Initiative is further developed.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$116.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• ($-174,884.0 ) Program funding has been reduced to provide additional time to absorb the
initial influx of FY 2010 funding for the Initiative. Over much of the past year, EPA and
other agencies have been working together and with stakeholders to get administrative
and accountability functions in place, including the action plan that will guide restoration
283
-------
efforts. Implementing these critical items now will ease program administration in the
future and result in better coordination and results. Consequently, some of the 2010
funding will not outlay until 2011.
• This amount also reflects payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act (Great
Lakes Legacy Act); CWA; Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990;
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; US-
Canada Agreements; WRDA; 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987
GLWQA; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997
Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy. EPA is again proposing the statutory
language pertaining to administrative provisions which was included in the FY 2010 Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Among other things, the
language would give EPA independent statutory interagency agreement authority and
implementing grant authority in support of the Initiative and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, and additional sediment remediation authority. Continuation of this authority is
important to the success of the Initiative. Agencies are expected to use numerous other statutory
authorities, intrinsic to their programs, in support of the Initiative.
284
-------
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$26,31 7. 8
$26,317.8
24.4
FY2010
Enacted
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
48.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$62,957.0
$62,957.0
48.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$12,957.0
$12,957.0
-0.1
Program Project Description:
In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council pledged to put in place by 2025 all Bay
management mechanisms necessary to restore the Bay. Part of this new strategy to speed up the
pace of Bay restoration and become more accountable included the setting of specific two year
milestones for each jurisdiction to reduce pollution to the Bay and its rivers. These milestones
will also contain "contingencies" and "consequences" for falling short.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13508 on Chesapeake Bay
Protection and Restoration. The EO has brought the Chesapeake Bay Program to a new level of
interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO established a Federal Leadership Committee
for the Chesapeake Bay chaired by EPA and including six other Federal agencies. The
Chesapeake Bay Program Office is supporting implementation of the new EO.
On November 9, 2009, EPA and the other agencies included in the EO released a draft
comprehensive strategy for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed as called for in section 203 of the EO. Also in November 2009, EPA and other
agencies released individual reports on specific challenges in the Chesapeake Bay as required
under section 202 of the EO. The agencies are engaged in a significant public outreach effort to
explain the strategy and reports and to hear directly from members of the public as to their
perspectives on the ideas contained in these documents.
EPA's recommended actions under the EO include:
• Development of watershed implementation plans by the six Bay watershed states and the
District of Columbia;
• Requiring the states and District to develop milestones detailing near-term actions and
loading reduction targets to evaluate progress toward water quality goals;
• Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to the
Chesapeake Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, new or
expanding sources of nutrient and/or sediment, and other pollutant sources as EPA deems
necessary; and
285
-------
• Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
accelerate the adoption of conservation practices by agricultural interests in the Bay
watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional partnership that has coordinated and
conducted the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. Partners of the Chesapeake Bay
Program include the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC), a tri-state
legislative body; the Environmental Protection Agency, representing the Federal government;
and advisory groups of citizens, scientists, and local government officials.
In the last 25 years, the CBP partners have:
• Adopted the nation's first consistent water quality standards and assessment
procedures, prompting major state and local investments in nutrient removal
technologies across hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities;
• Established nutrient management plans on 3.4 million farmland acres;
• Preserved 1 million acres of forests, wetlands, farmland and other natural resources,
meeting the Program's Land Preservation goal two years early;
• Developed science, data monitoring, models, and measures that are recognized as
some of the best and most extensive in the country and often around the world;
• Placed moratoria on striped bass harvests, leading to restoration of the stock that
supports 90 percent of the Atlantic Coast population;
• Advanced use of conservation tillage, now practiced on more than 2 million acres;
• Planted 6,172 miles of streamside forested buffers;
• Restored 13,005 acres of wetlands; and
• Removed blockages to more than 2,300 miles of spawning grounds to help restore
migratory fish.
Despite 25 years of progress, the health of the Bay and its watershed remains severely impaired,
primarily by nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediments from agriculture, development,
wastewater, and air deposition. Agriculture accounts for 38 percent of the nitrogen loads, 45
percent of the phosphorus loads, and over 60 percent of the sediment loads to the Bay.
Increasingly, the pressures of population growth and development are the greatest challenge to
restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Nutrients and sediments from
stormwater runoff from suburban and urban sources are the only source of pollution that is
increasing.
In November 2009, EPA provided the six states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the
District of Columbia with rigorous expectations for jurisdictions to reduce pollution in streams,
rivers and the Bay to meet water quality standards. EPA's expectations fulfill the mandate of the
EO, which calls for a new accountability framework that guides Federal, state, and local water
quality restoration efforts. The expectations also are a component of the Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which will set pollution limits for point sources and nonpoint
sources contributing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to the Bay and its tidal creeks, rivers,
and embayments. EPA expects the six watershed states and D.C. to identify how they will
286
-------
reduce pollutant loads to levels necessary to meet water quality standards. EPA expects detailed
schedules for implementing cleanup actions and achieving pollution reductions. Progress will be
measured through benchmarks every two years.
On December 29, 2009, EPA sent a letter to the Chesapeake Bay states that provided details
about the potential Federal consequences for inadequate plans or failure to meet the performance
milestones established. The Federal consequences letter, which may be viewed electronically at
http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/bay letter_1209.pdf, noted that EPA may exercise its
discretionary authority to take any or all of the following actions as necessary:
• Expand NPDES permit coverage to currently unregulated sources;
• Object to NPDES permits and increase program oversight
• Require net improvement offsets;
• Establish finer scale wasteload and load allocations in the Bay TMDL;
• Require additional reductions of loadings from point sources;
• Increase and target Federal enforcement and compliance assurance in the watershed;
• Condition or redirect EPA grants based on demonstrated progress; and
• Federal promulgation of local nutrient water quality standards.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's focus in FY 2011 will be to continue to improve the rate of progress in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed by meeting the President's expectations as described in E.O. 13508, using the
agency's existing statutory authority, developing more rigorous regulations, providing states with
the tools necessary for effective regulatory implementation, creating better tools for scientific
analysis and accountability, and supporting regulatory compliance and enforcement. The
requested increase of $13 million in FY 2011 will be used to increase state implementation and
enforcement grants to $20 million in total funding and to implement key initiatives under
President Obama's Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, including:
implementing the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL); developing new
regulations for animal feeding operations and stormwater discharges; deploying technology to
integrate discrete Bay data systems and to present the data in an accessible accountability system
called ChesapeakeStat; and implementing a Bay-specific enforcement and compliance initiative.
E.O. 13508 establishes a number of expectations that will require EPA resources in FY 2011.
Most significant will be the implementation of the new Federal initiatives identified in the final
Chesapeake Bay strategy required to be released in May 2010. This document will provide a
crucial roadmap for the E.O., and requires the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) to publish
an annual action plan and an annual progress report, the first of which are likely to be published
in final form in FY 2011. The E.O. also requires the FLC to support periodic evaluation of
progress made toward the goals described in the E.O. The CBP partnership is using independent
program performance evaluation to critically review components of the CBP and support
enhanced "adaptive management" efforts. A first step in this effort is a National Academies of
Science study on how to improve strategic and specific implementation efforts to attain the
CBP's nutrient reduction goal for water quality in order to accelerate the protection and
restoration goals for the Chesapeake Bay. EPA's General Counsel will provide support for the
287
-------
development and implementation of the Federal Bay restoration strategy pursuant to E.O. 13508,
including programs and the affected Regional offices: the Air program, the Enforcement
program, and also legal counsel and the environmental information office.
A centerpiece of EPA's FY 2011 activities is the implementation of the nation's largest and most
complex Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. A
TMDL is essentially a plan that defines how much of a particular pollutant may be discharged in
to a particular waterbody while allowing the waterbody to meet its water quality standards and
designated uses. Through their watershed implementation plans, EPA expects that the Bay states
and the District of Columbia will provide specific timelines for enhancing programs and
implementing actions to reduce pollution, with all measures needed to reach the TMDL pollution
load limits in place no later than 2025. By FY 2011, EPA expects the states and D.C. to divide
their allocated pollution reductions to the local level so that counties, municipalities,
conservation districts and watershed organizations understand their role in meeting water quality
goals. EPA expects that by 2017 pollution controls will be in place that should result in
approximately 60 percent of the required reductions.
In FY 2011, EPA will use its technical and scientific analysis capabilities to provide
implementation support and guidance to the states and thousands of local governments that will
be affected by the TMDL. EPA will assist these jurisdictions in making scientifically informed
determinations of the most effective ways to meet their TMDL obligations that will provide
individually tailored solutions. EPA's Air program will work with Region 3 and the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office to establish air deposition allocations as part of the load allocations for the
Bay TMDL and analyze whether additional reductions are needed to meet the air deposition load
allocations.
In FY 2011, EPA also will continue the development and implementation of new regulations to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will initiate rulemakings under the Clean Water
Act to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution in the Bay from concentrated animal
feeding operations, stormwater discharges from new and redeveloped properties, new or
expanded discharges, and other pollutant discharges as necessary.
EPA will use its resources to develop the scientific underpinnings of the new regulations, which
likely will include enhanced understanding of the loads contributed by various pollution sources
in specific geographies. EPA's Air and Radiatio program is developing three rules that could
affect ambient air levels of NOx and therefore the deposition of nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay:
1) a replacement rule for the court-remanded Clean Air Interstate Rule; 2) the reconsideration of
the ozone standard that was promulgated in 2008; and 3) a secondary standard for oxides of
nitrogen and sulfur.
To ensure that the states are able to meet EPA's expectations under the TMDL and new
rulemakings, EPA will continue and in some cases expand its broad range of grant programs.
EPA will direct investments toward key local governments and watershed organizations based on
their ability to reduce nutrient and sediment loads via key sectors such as development and
agriculture in urban and rural areas. Most significantly, EPA will increase the funding for state
implementation and enforcement by $1.2 million over FY 2010 levels, for a total of $20 million.
288
-------
This represents a $12.5 million increase in state implementation and enforcement grants from FY
2009 levels. EPA has developed new guidance for the state implementation grants that ensures a
high level of accountability for the use of these resources. These grants are an essential part of
achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed EPA's Chesapeake
Bay Program has established a high level of accountability and transparency. The next step in
meeting that commitment to program partners and stakeholders is the development of the
Chesapeake Registry and ChesapeakeStat. The Chesapeake Registry gathers project and
resource information from all Bay partners, including non-governmental organizations, to track
partner actions with current and expected progress against explicit environmental measures and
outcomes (i.e., restored water quality, aquatic habitat and fisheries, healthy watersheds, and
fostered stewardship). In FY 2011, EPA will work with key partners to integrate their existing
internal partner performance management data systems and refine the Chesapeake Registry to
better support state and Federal implementation efforts.
ChesapeakeStat is a key element in the next generation of tools EPA is developing to
significantly enhance the accountability of program partners. Currently Federal, state, and local
data sources are largely stove-piped and rarely geoenabled. ChesapeakeStat will be a web based,
geoenabled tool for performance-based interactive decision making for all Bay partners. The
system will allow the public to track progress and become informed and engaged in restoring the
Bay. Bay partners will use ChesapeakeStat to develop interactive performance dashboards to
help articulate and support the implementation activities and resources needed to close the gap
between expected outcomes and established program goals. This will lead to better targeting of
restoration activities in those sub-watersheds that will yield the greatest nutrient and sediment
reductions and a better understanding of options to accelerate implementation.
A key feature of ChesapeakeStat will be the ability to target resources and activities to ensure
that taxpayer dollars are used where they will do most good. ChesapeakeStat will provide an
interface for existing discrete systems and a newly deployed enterprise data engine for the
Chesapeake Bay. The data engine will serve modeling and science needs; make valuable
information exchanges between Federal, state, local, Tribal, and non-governmental partners; and
link resource information in the Chesapeake Registry to threats, goals, strategies, and
investments. The blueprints and interfaces for this system will be shared with other large aquatic
ecosystems such as Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. In FY 2011, the
Agency will use its Bay-related resource allocation to fully deploy ChesapeakeStat.
Ensuring that the regulated community complies with the appropriate regulations is an essential
responsibility for achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. In
FY 2011, the Enforcement and Compliance Assistance program will use its Bay-related resource
allocation to focus on sectors contributing significant amounts of nutrients, sediment and other
contaminants to impaired watersheds in the Bay, including CAFOs, stormwater point source
discharges (including discharges from municipal separate storm, sewer systems, stormwater
discharges from construction sites and other industrial facilities), municipal and industrial
wastewater facilities, and air deposition sources of nitrogen, including power plants. EPA also
will identify appropriate opportunities for compliance and enforcement activities related to dredge
and fill operations, Federal facilities, and Superfund sites, including remedial action and removal
sites, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facilities.
289
-------
More specifically, EPA's compliance and enforcement actions will be focused on the following
areas:
• Superfund and RCRA: Elizabeth River; Anacostia River; and Patapsco River (Baltimore
Harbor);
• CAFOs: three geographic areas that represent the greatest contributions of manure-based
agriculture nutrient loads to the Bay;
• Wastewater: significant wastewater facilities under permit schedules for upgrading
treatment;
• Stormwater: permit non-compliance related to municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s), construction activity and priority industrial sectors within geographic hot-spots
that are critical to restoration of the Bay; and
• Air deposition: stationary sources and mobile sources at port facilities, warehouses, and
construction sites within the Chesapeake Bay airshed.
In addition, enforcement resources will support the Agency's priority to restore the Chesapeake
Bay by providing information about wet weather sources of pollution. This will result in an
increase in knowledge, use, transparency, and public access to data about wet weather sources
through: a) building an electronic reporting module for getting non-major permit data into ICIS-
NPDES to pilot with states in the Chesapeake Bay; b) building and deploying targeting tools to
help identify the most significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants most
responsible for the impairment of this important water body; and c) making all non-enforcement
confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use and
understand the data.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal
(HPPG), addressing Chesapeake Bay water quality (specified in full in Appendix A).
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing sediment
reduction practices to
reduce sediment 1.69M
tons from 1985 levels
to achieve a4.15M
ton/yr cap load, based
on long-term avg.
hydrology simulations.
FY 2009
Target
67
FY 2009
Actual
64
FY 2010
Target
71
FY2011
Target
71
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing
FY 2009
Target
64
FY 2009
Actual
65
FY 2010
Target
66
FY2011
Target
70
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
290
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
phosphorus reduction
practices to reduce
phosphorus 14.36M Ibs
from 1985 levels to
achieve a 12.8M Ib/yr
cap load, based on LT
avg. hydrology
simulations.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing nitrogen
reduction practices to
reduce nitrogen
162.5M Ibs from 1985
levels to achieve a
175M Ib/yr cap load,
based on long-term
avg. hydrology
simulations.
FY 2009
Target
50
FY 2009
Actual
49
FY 2010
Target
52
FY2011
Target
56
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point source
nitrogen reduction goal
of 49.9 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2009
Target
74
FY 2009
Actual
70
FY 2010
Target
74
FY2011
Target
76
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point source
phosphorus reduction
goal of 6. 16 million
pounds achieved.
FY 2009
Target
87
FY 2009
Actual
96
FY 2010
Target
89
FY2011
Target
96
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of forest buffer
planting goal of 10,000
miles achieved.
FY 2009
Target
62
FY 2009
Actual
62
FY 2010
Target
65
FY2011
Target
68
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total nitrogen
FY 2009
Target
49,237
FY 2009
Actual
49,660
FY 2010
Target
49,237
FY2011
Target
48,134
Units
Pounds
291
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
reduction practices
implementation
achieved a a result of
agricultural best
management practice
implementation per
million dollars to
implement agricultural
BMPs.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
For FY 2011, EPA, along with the other agencies involved in responding to the President's
Executive Order, will be establishing short-term, medium-term, and long-term performance
targets for the initiatives taken under the E.O. These targets will relate to the specific actions
identified in the final coordinated implementation strategy required to be released in May 2010.
The performance targets will be included in the final strategy document. EPA is participating in
a sequence of meetings with the other federal agencies working on the E.O. to identify a series of
performance targets that not only provide a path forward on the initiatives, but that represent
improvements in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+1,460.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• ($11,497.0) This reflects an increase to implement the EPA Executive Order, state
nonpoint source program enhancements and EPA Executive Order enforcement activities.
This includes an additional $35.0 in travel and $275.0 in IT and telecommunications
resources.
Statutory Authority:
CWA, RCRA.
292
-------
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,922.0
$4,922.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
2.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,000.0
$5,000.0
2.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,000.0)
($2,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary Program is aimed at protecting and restoring water quality
and ecological health of the estuary through partnerships, interagency coordination, and project
grants. The San Francisco Estuary is the largest estuary on the west coasts of North and South
America. It comprises the 1,153-square mile Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the 478-square
mile San Francisco Bay and receives runoff from 40 percent of California's land area. Because
of its highly dynamic and complex environmental conditions, it supports many important
economic activities including commercial and sport fishing, shipping, industry, agriculture,
recreation and tourism. The Delta serves as the major hub of California's water supply,
channeling water to two-thirds of the state's households and millions of acres of farmland in the
Central Valley. EPA has a diverse and active history of working with state, Federal and other
stakeholders throughout the entire estuary to protect water quality and ecosystem health.
Program priorities include:
• Participation in Federal and state partnerships aimed at resolving the challenges of
water quality, ecosystem health and water supplies;
• Water quality improvements through Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),
watershed plans and upgrading aging infrastructure;
• Supporting the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (National Estuary Program) and the
implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP);
• Protection and restoration of streams and wetlands, and the reuse of dredge material;
and
Predicting, mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts on water quality.
41
41 For more additional information on program activities see:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water issues/programs/bay delta/strategic plan/
http://calwater.ca.gov/index.aspx
http: //resources, ca. go v/bdcp/
http://deltavision.ca.gov/
293
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary Program will focus on the following activities:
• Provide scientific support for Bay-Delta restoration to improve the understanding of :
o The causes and methods for reversing the decline of pelagic organisms in the
Delta;
o Restoring the health of the San Joaquin River (San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act, Public Law 111-11); and
o Pesticide and mercury pollutant loading;
• Provide leadership in reinvigorated state/Federal partnership to balance the competing
water needs between agriculture, urban uses and the environment;
• Continue competitive grant program to implement projects that improve water quality
and restore San Francisco Bay watersheds;
• Strengthen ongoing implementation of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership's
CCMP by supporting a new strategic plan. Encourage focus on reducing urban runoff
impacts on water quality through watershed planning, Low Impact Development
(LID) and TMDL implementation;
• Support the California Water Boards in implementing their Bay Delta Strategic Plan,
particularly reviewing/improving water quality standards;
• Increase effectiveness of regulatory programs to protect wetlands and streams;
• Continue efforts to support studies that focus on preparing for the effects of climate
change;
• Continue to support restoration of wetlands acreage; and
• Strengthen monitoring to assist in Clean Water Act reporting and TMDL
implementation, particularly aimed at establishing a San Joaquin Regional
Monitoring Program.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
http://sfep.abag.ca.gov/
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=838eOa426684bOfeb8abf6b8e60cb326
294
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,005.0) This reduces congressional directed increase in funding in FY 2010 for the
San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary Program.
• (+$5.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living of existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CWA
295
-------
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,256.6
$11,256.6
4.6
FY2010
Enacted
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
9.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
8.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($30,000.0)
($30,000.0)
-1.3
Program Project Description:
The Puget Sound program works to protect and restore Puget Sound. Puget Sound has been
designated as an estuary of national significance under the CWA National Estuary Program
(NEP). EPA efforts are focused on the following high priority environmental activities
consistent with the State of Washington's 2020 Action Agenda:
• Improving water quality and upgrading shellfish bed classifications;
• Managing stormwater by implementing effective local watershed protection plans;
• Reducing sources of toxics and nutrients;
• Restoring and protecting near shore habitat; and
• Improving monitoring and science.
42
For more information, visit: http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa action agenda.php
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Puget Sound program will continue efforts to improve water quality and
minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin. In 2009, EPA
approved Puget Sound National Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). EPA worked closely with state and Tribal partners to ensure that the
State of Washington's 2020 Action Agenda met the environmental, regulatory, and performance
objectives of the CCMP.
42 For additional information please see:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=e7el6b26192b86b4bala48f775e6777e
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=fe6d95fee9f929947a9876314191fded
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=4250c05fcffe055c38486634b6c9cb85
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=8bd234el795d2cc71f81bc4f7a92269a
296
-------
The goal of the approved CCMP for the Puget Sound Estuary is to restore and maintain the Puget
Sound Estuary's estuarine environment by 2020 so that it will support balanced indigenous
populations of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and support the extensive list of recognized uses of
Puget Sound. The program will significantly leverage Federal funds with state and local partners
to implement the CCMP with special focus in the following areas:
• Improving water quality by supporting local efforts to identify sources of pathogen
pollution and implementing improved practices to reduce those sources. The goal is to
protect human health by upgrading harvest classifications of approximately 125 acres of
commercial shellfish beds in FY 2011;
• Restoring and protecting near shore habitat by implementing projects identified as
priorities in consultation with Federal, state, and local partners. Our target is to restore
and protect approximately 750 acres of tidally and seasonally-influenced estuarine
wetlands in FY 2011;
• Providing technical and financial support to local governments to reduce the adverse
impacts of stormwater on the health of watersheds. Stormwater is a leading stressor on
watershed health as identified in the 2020 Action Agenda;
• Cleaning up known contaminated sediments. EPA's target is to remediate 4 acres in FY
2011;
• Reducing discharges of toxics and nutrient pollution by continuing to implement
reduction strategies developed with Federal, state, and local partners;
• Supporting species recovery efforts with Federal, Tribal, state, and local partners; and
• Strengthening monitoring and science consistent with the Science Plan, developed by the
Puget Sound Partnership Science Panel, and the advice of Federal Caucus and Canadian
partners. Areas likely to receive support will include monitoring of indicator measures
for accountability purposes; database support; refinement of nutrient and toxics loading,
circulation, and fate models; and improved watershed assessment work to support more
effective implementation activities related to water quality and salmon recovery.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve water quality
and enable the lifting
of harvest restrictions
in acres of shellfish
bed growing areas
impacted by degrading
or declining water
quality.
FY 2009
Target
600
FY 2009
Actual
1,730
FY 2010
Target
1,800
FY2011
Target
1,925
Units
Acres
297
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Remediate acres of
prioritized
contaminiated
sediments.
FY 2009
Target
125
FY 2009
Actual
123.1
FY 2010
Target
123
FY2011
Target
127
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore the acres of
tidally and seasonally
influenced estuarine
wetlands.
FY 2009
Target
5,700
FY 2009
Actual
5,751
FY 2010
Target
6,500
FY2011
Target
7,250
Units
Acres
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$26,000.0) This reduces congressional directed increase in funding in the FY 2010
Enacted Budget for the Puget Sound Basin.
• (-$4,000.0) This reduces congressional directed funding in FY 2010 for the Puget Sound
Ecosystem Research Initiative at the University of Washington's College of the
Environment.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; Water Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000;
RCRA; CERCLA; Economy Act of 1932; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; CAA; SWDA;
TSCA. FIFRA; Pollution Prevention Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
National Environmental Education Act.
298
-------
Geographic Program: South Florida
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,279.6
$2,279.6
3.6
FY2010
Enacted
$2,168.0
$2,168.0
3.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,148.0
$2,148.0
3.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($20.0)
($20.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The South Florida program leads special initiatives and planning activities in the South Florida
region, which includes the Everglades and Florida Keys coral reef ecosystem. EPA implements,
coordinates, and facilitates activities including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404
Wetlands Protection Program, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), the
Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS),
the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) as directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task
Force, the Brownfields program, and other programs.
For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/southflorida/
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA South Florida program targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and
ecosystems impacted by environmental problems. In FY 2011, EPA will focus on the following
activities:
• Assist with coordinating and facilitating the ongoing implementation of the Water
Quality Protection Program for the FKNMS, including management of long-term status
and trends monitoring projects (water quality, coral reef, and seagrass) and the associated
data management program;
• Conduct studies to determine cause and effect relationships among pollutants and
biological resources, implement wastewater and stormwater master plans, and provide
public education and outreach activities;
• Provide monetary and/or technical/managerial support for priority environmental projects
and programs in South Florida, including:
o Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative;
o Water Quality Protection Strategy for the South Florida Ecosystem;
o Integrated Mercury Study; and
299
-------
o Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) to
assess ecosystem characteristics and conditions throughout the Everglades
ecosystem;
• Implement the Wetlands Conservation, Permitting, and Mitigation Strategy;
• Support collaborative efforts through interagency workgroups/committees/task forces,
including: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; Florida Bay program
Management Committee; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and South Florida Urban
Initiative;
• Under a consent decree, continue assistance with development of Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for South Florida;
• Propose nutrient criteria for the state of Florida in January 2010 for lakes and flowing
water and January 2011 for coastal and estuaries, consistent with the schedule set out in
EPA's January 2009 determination; and
• Assist with development of and tracking National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and other permits, including discharge limits that are consistent with
state and Federal law, and Federal Court consent decrees.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
At least seventy five
percent of the
monitored stations in
the near shore and
coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will
maintain Chlorophyll
a(CHLA) levels at less
than to equal to 0.35 ug
1-1 and light clarity(
Kd) )levels at less than
or equal to 0.20 m-1.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
75
Units
Percent
Qtoti r\r\ c
L7 LCI-LlU-llO
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
At least seventy five
percent of the
monitored stations in
the near shore and
coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
75
Units
Percent
Stations
300
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
maintain dissolved
inorganic nitrogen
(DIN) levels at less
than or equal to 0.75
uM and total
phosphorus (TP) levels
at less than or equal to
.25 uM.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve the water
quality of the
Everglades ecosystem
as measured by total
phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 ppb
total phosphorus
criterion throughout
the Everglades
Protection Area marsh.
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
FY 2009
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2010
Target
Maintain
FY2011
Target
Maintain
Units
Parts/Billion
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$20.0) This reflects the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for existing
FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs.
Statutory Authority:
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990; National Marine
Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992; CWA; Water Resources Development Act of
1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000;
301
-------
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Mississippi River Basin initiative will focus on nonpoint source program enhancements to
result in water-quality improvement throughout the watershed and in the Gulf of Mexico. This
initiative supports the implementation of the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 as well as the
regional priorities outlined in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance's Governor's Action Plan II ), both of
which describe strategies to reduce, mitigate, and control hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico and improve water quality in the Mississippi River Basin.43
Resources in this program project - supplemented by EPA support via the Surface Water
Protection and Gulf of Mexico program projects - will support grants for the development and
implementation of state nutrient reduction strategies and the achievement of other goals outlined
in the Hypoxia Action Plan 2008, and the Action Plan II, and will involve close collaboration
with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to target critical watersheds for
focused nutrient reduction efforts, as well as the efforts of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to
measure progress in nutrient reduction within the Basin. The 2008 Action Plan describes eleven
goals and actions needed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus, including the promotion of
effective conservation practices and management practices, tracking progress, reducing existing
scientific uncertainties, identifying the economic costs of hypoxia, and promoting effective
communications to increase awareness of Gulf hypoxia.
For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/
This program will work closely with the Gulf of Mexico program over the upcoming year to
coordinate and integrate activities to maximize their effectiveness. The Agency will also
examine the most appropriate program and accountability structure for the Mississippi River
Basin and Gulf of Mexico programs for the next budget cycle and will make changes as needed.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The hypoxic zone that forms in the summer off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is primarily
caused by excess nutrients, many of which originate in Middle American cities, farms and
!(http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm'l
302
-------
industries. To address this pressing water quality challenge, EPA will work with state and
Federal partners to target the highest priority watersheds in the Mississippi River Basin to
demonstrate how effective nutrient strategies and enhanced partnerships, especially with the
agricultural community, can yield significant progress in addressing non-point source driven
nutrient pollution. A key emphasis will be encouraging partnerships with USDA and USGS to
promote sustainable agricultural practices, to reduce nutrient loadings in the Mississippi River
Basin.
In FY 2011, EPA will invest $12.4 million in the Mississippi River Basin through grants for the
following activities, which will be targeted in one high priority watershed in each of Regions 5
and 7:
• Working with Federal and state partners to focus wetland restoration and development
and habitat restoration efforts towards projects within the Mississippi River Basin that
will sequester nutrients as appropriate from targeted watersheds and tributaries;
• Designing and implementing Nutrient Reduction Strategies in the Mississippi River
Basin watershed as called for by the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008;
• Coordinating with the USDA Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative to
promote watershed scale planning, practice implementation, and monitoring by the
states44 in line with their nutrient reduction strategies, which will benefit the state
resources impacted by nutrient pollution and Gulf hypoxia;
• Supporting pilot investigations of critical Regional priorities described in the Gulf
Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 related to nutrient reduction, such as providing support as the
states develop nutrient standards, and support for watershed planning that incorporates
practice implementation to reduce the impacts of cropland drainage;
• Collaboration with states and other Federal agencies within targeted watersheds to
leverage.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis sub-
objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$12,400.0) This increase reflects EPA's increased support of programs to design and
implement Nutrient Reduction Strategies in the Upper Mississippi River Basin as called
for by the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Action Plan
II.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
44 Louisiana, Mississippi Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota
303
-------
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,072.9
$3,072.9
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($4,000.0)
($4,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA supports the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound through its Long Island Sound
Office (LISO), established under Section 119 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. EPA
assists the states in implementing the Sound's 1994 Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), developed under Section 320 of the CWA. EPA and the States of
Connecticut and New York work in partnership with regional water pollution control agencies,
scientific researchers, user groups, environmental organizations, industry, and other interested
organizations and individuals to restore and protect the Sound and its critical ecosystems.
The CCMP identified six critical environmental problem areas that require sustained and
coordinated action to address: the effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem, including living marine
resources and commercially valuable species (e.g., American lobster); the impacts of toxic
contamination in the food web and on living resources; pathogen contamination and pollution;
floatable debris deposition; the impacts of habitat degradation and loss on the health of living
resources; and the effects of land use and development on the Sound, its human population and
public access to its resources. The CCMP also identifies public education, information, and
participation as priority action items in protecting and restoring the Sound. Priorities for CCMP
implementation with quantitative targets and timeframes were adopted in the Long Island Sound
Study 2003 Agreement.
The States of New York and Connecticut are actively reducing nitrogen through their innovative
and nationally-recognized pollution trading programs. In 2008, the states discharged 40,440
trade-equalized pounds per day of nitrogen from 106 sewage treatments plants in New York and
Connecticut that discharge to Long Island Sound. This represents a 31.6 percent reduction from
the baseline and 51.4 percent of the total reduction goal for 2014. Between 1998 and 2009, the
states restored or protected 1,613 cumulative acres of critical coastal habitat, and reopened 147
cumulative miles of river corridors to diadromous fish passage through construction of fishways
or removal of barriers to fish passage. The states have committed to restore or protect an
additional 240 acres and reopen an additional 50 river miles between 2009 and 2014 inclusive.
EPA will work with the states through the Long Island Sound Futures Fund grant program to
assist in achieving these goals.
304
-------
(See http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net and http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis for further
information.)45
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to oversee implementation of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) CCMP in
FY 2011 by coordinating the cleanup and restoration actions of the LISS Management
Conference as authorized under Sections 119 and 320 of the CWA. In FY 2011, EPA will focus
on the following:
• Reducing the area of the seasonally impaired fish and shellfish habitats through continued
emphasis on lowering Sound nitrogen loads to alleviate low oxygen levels (a condition
called hypoxia). Specifically, LISO will work with the States of New York and
Connecticut to revise and implement the nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load first
approved by EPA in April 2001;
• Coordinating priority watershed protection programs through the Long Island Sound
Management Conference partners to ensure that efforts are directed toward priority, river
and stream reaches that affect Long Island Sound. Watershed protection and nonpoint
source pollution controls will help reduce the effects of runoff pollution on rivers and
streams discharging to the Sound. Restoration and protection efforts will increase
streamside buffer zones as natural filters of pollutants and runoff;
• Monitoring (year-round and seasonal) for water quality indicators including: biological
indicators such as chlorophyll a, and environmental indicators, such as dissolved oxygen
levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity. This monitoring will assist Management
Conference partners in assessing environmental conditions that may contribute to
impaired water quality and in developing strategies to address impairments;
• Protecting and restoring critical coastal habitats that will improve the productivity of tidal
wetlands, inter-tidal zones, and other key habitats that have been adversely affected by
unplanned development, overuse, or land use-related pollution effects through the Long
Island Sound Futures Fund, administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation;
• Stewardship of ecologically and biologically significant areas, and identification and
management of recreationally important areas, will assist in developing compatible
public access and uses of the Sound's resources;
• Coordinating with the Long Island Sound Science and Technical Advisory Committee in
conducting focused scientific research into the causes and effects of pollution on the
Sound's living marine resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses to assist
managers and public decision-makers in developing policies and strategies to address
environmental, social, and human health impacts; and
45 For additional information see:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=6504cc92476fD5523fc836b5dc099c2f
305
-------
• Coordinating with the Long Island Sound Citizens Advisory Committee to develop an
educated population that is aware of significant environmental problems and understands
the management approach to, and their role in, correcting problems.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved in reducing
trade-equalized (TE)
point source nitrogen
discharges to Long
Island Sound from the
1999 baseline of
59,146TElbs/day.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
52
FY2011
Target
52
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved in restoring,
protecting or
enhancing 240 acres of
coastal habitat from the
2008 baseline of 1,199
acres.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
33
FY2011
Target
50
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved in reopening
50 river and stream
miles to diadromous
fish passage from the
2008 baseline of 124
miles.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
33
FY2011
Target
50
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,000.0) This reduces congressional directed increase in funding in FY 2011 for the
Long Island Sound program.
Statutory Authority:
Long Island Sound Restoration Act, P.L. 106-457 as amended by P.L. 109-137; 33 U.S.C. 1269.
Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, P.L. 109-353; 33 U.S.C. 1269 NOTE
306
-------
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,837.5
$4,837.5
12.7
FY2010
Enacted
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
14.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$4,515.0
$4,515.0
13.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,485.0)
($1,485.0)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico directly support a transparent and collaborative, multi-
organizational Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional businesses and industries,
agriculture, state and local governments, citizens, environmental and fishery interests, and
numerous Federal departments and agencies. The Gulf of Mexico Program is designed to assist
the Gulf states and stakeholders in developing a regional, ecosystem-based framework for
restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico. In response to the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, thirteen
Federal agencies formed a Regional Partnership to provide support to the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance, a partnership of the five Gulf states. The Gulf states have identified key priority
coastal and ocean issues that are regionally significant and can be effectively addressed through
cooperation at the local, state, and Federal levels.
Building on the successes of the first Gulf of Mexico Governors' Action Plan released in 2006,
the Gulf States and their partners developed the Governors' Action Plan II, a far-reaching, five
year regional plan released in June 2009 that will expand partnerships to strengthen the Federal
state and local network and set a course for action designed to improve the health of the Gulf
coastal ecosystems and economies in ways that a single entity could not achieve. It is a strategy
for tangible results that identifies processes and financial authorities in order to leverage
resources. In addition, Action Plan II encourages collaboration among countries in the region.
46
This program will work closely with the new Mississippi River Basin program over the
upcoming year to coordinate and integrate activities to maximize their effectiveness. The
Agency will also examine the most appropriate program and accountability structure for the
Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico programs for the next budget cycle and will make
changes as needed.
For additional information see:
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=46df7553599d7161ec8540db0240fl99
307
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Gulf of Mexico Alliance's environmental priority focus areas are water quality for healthy
beaches and seafood, habitat conservation and restoration, ecosystems integration and
assessment, reducing nutrient impacts to coastal ecosystems, coastal community resilience, and
environmental education. FY 2011 activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program and its partners will
include:
• Supporting efforts to achieve the FY 2011 target to restore 128 impaired segments in the
13 priority coastal areas to water and habitat quality levels that meet state water quality
standards;
• Supporting projects with the goal of creating, restoring or protecting 30,000 acres of
important coastal and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and addressing coastal
community resilience;
• Supporting state and coastal community efforts to manage Harmful Algal Blooms
(HABs) by continuing to implement integrated bi-national early-warning system pilot
projects in Mexico;
» Assisting the Gulf states in reducing contamination of seafood and local beaches through
efforts to establish effective microbial source tracking methods and technologies to
identify the sources of bacteria. This is imperative for developing best management
practices to control fecal contamination, protect recreational water users from waterborne
pathogens, and preserve the integrity of drinking source water supplies;
• Coordinating and standardizing state and Federal water quality data collection activities
to maximize the efficiency and utility of water quality monitoring efforts for local
managers in the Gulf region and to assure the continued effective implementation of core
clean water programs;
• Supporting Mississippi River Basin Initiative efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to
watersheds and reduce the size of the hypoxic zone by focusing on both localized
pollutant addition throughout the Basin and on nutrient loadings from the Mississippi
River. EPA will increase watershed partnerships to implement best management
practices, identify significant nutrient sources, identify opportunities for significant load
reductions, and pilot new nutrient reduction technologies;
• Supporting coastal nutrient criteria and standards development with a Gulf State pilot and
developing science and management tools for the characterization of nutrients in coastal
ecosystems;
• Assisting with the development of information, tools, technologies, products, policies, or
public decision processes that can be used by coastal communities to increase resilience
to coastal natural hazards and sea level rise;
308
-------
• Establishing public and private support for the development and deployment of the Gulf
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers Rotational Educational Exhibits Initiative; and
• Fostering regional stewardship and awareness of Gulf coastal resources through annual
Gulf Guardian Awards, developing a Public Awareness Campaign, and projects
enhancing local capacity to reach underserved and underrepresented populations.
The bi-national red tide monitoring system framework (Harmful Algal Bloom Observing
System, HABSOS) was expanded to Veracruz, Mexico, and will continue to expand to additional
Mexican states. The Gulf of Mexico Program will continue to support the Gulf States' allied
efforts to manage harmful algal blooms by implementing an integrated bi-national early-warning
system and timely forecasts to improve the ability of U. S. and Mexican border state agencies to
protect public health, warn fishermen and coastal resource harvesters, and disseminate relevant
and accurate information to the public to reduce adverse economic impacts from harmful algal
blooms.
• The Gulf of Mexico Program continues to support the Gulf States Governors' Alliance
and the five-year Action Plan II of 100 specific challenges designed to enhance the
environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico. Progress reported toward the
number of near-term actions in Action Plan I, with the leverage of the Federal
Workgroup partnership, exceeded expectations at an overall 100 percent on track or
completed. The success of the state-led and Federally-supported Gulf of Mexico Alliance
shows that the Gulf region is making progress in addressing tremendous challenges and
has emerged as a governance model for the nation.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore water and
habitat quality to meet
water quality standards
in impaired segments
in 13 priority coastal
areas (cumulative
starting in FY 07).
FY 2009
Target
96
FY 2009
Actual
131
FY 2010
Target
96
FY2011
Target
128
Units
Impaired
Segments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore, enhance, or
protect a cumulative
number of acres of
important coastal and
marine habitats.
FY 2009
Target
26,000
FY 2009
Actual
29,344
FY 2010
Target
27,500
FY2011
Target
30,000
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve the overall
FY 2009
Target
2.5
FY 2009
Actual
2.2
FY 2010
Target
2.5
FY2011
Target
2.6
Units
Scale
309
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
health of coastal waters
of the Gulf of Mexico
on the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
The Gulf of Mexico Program's support for restoration of coastal and marine habitat is through
cooperative and partnership agreements for projects. Regional collaboration of industry partners
coordinated efforts to restore a total of 30,000 cumulative acres.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$103.0 / -1.0 FTE) This change includes -$103.0 in associated payroll and reflects
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
skills and Agency priorities. These resources are shifting to support a HQ Gulf of
Mexico Hypoxia Coordinator under the National Estuary Program.
• (-$20.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-1,362.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding in FY 2011 for the Gulf Of
Mexico Program. However, in conjunction with the new funding ($17 million) for the
Mississippi River Basin, total resources that will help address Gulf of Mexico issues
specifically will increase overall..
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
310
-------
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,147.5
$3,147.5
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,434.0
$1,434.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,566.0)
($2,566.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Lake Champlain was designated a resource of national significance by the Lake Champlain
Special Designation Act (Public Law 101-596) that was signed into law on November 5, 1990.
A management plan for the watershed, "Opportunities for Action," was developed to achieve the
goal of the Act: to bring together people with diverse interests in the lake to create a
comprehensive pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for protecting the future of the
Lake Champlain Basin. EPA's efforts to protect Lake Champlain support the successful
interstate, interagency, and international partnership undertaking the implementation of the Plan.
"Opportunities for Action" is designed to address various threats to the Lake's water quality,
including phosphorus loadings, invasive species, and toxic substances.47
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Through a collaborative and transparent process, EPA works with state and local partners to
protect and improve the Lake Champlain Basin's water quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife,
recreation, and cultural resources. FY 2011 activities include:
• Working with Federal, state, provincial, and local partners to address high levels of
phosphorous, by implementing the joint Vermont and New York Lake Champlain Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to reduce phosphorus loads from all categories of sources
(point, urban, and agricultural nonpoint);
• Continuing to collaborate with the International Joint Commission (IJC) to determine the
critical source areas of phosphorus in the Missisquoi Bay sub-basin, distributing results
obtained to date to Lake Champlain partners at the state, local, Federal, and provincial
level for implementation actions;
47 For additional information see: http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html
http://www.lcbp.org
http://nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain_feds
http://www.cfda.gov
311
-------
• Carrying out required activities resulting from the Lake Champlain TMDL lawsuit and
the Vermont National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) withdrawal
petition;
• Implementing an ecological report card which tracks ecological status and restoration
progress in the Lake Champlain Basin, and which reflects the updated Management Plan,
the results of the critical source area work, and the outcomes of the lawsuit and petition;
• Developing and implementing an adaptive management framework for evaluating the
results of management efforts in the Lake Champlain basin on water quality and other
ecosystem indicators;
• Developing and implementing a tracking system for investments in Lake Champlain
basin restoration;
• Preventing the introduction of an invasive form of Didymosphenia geminata into the
Lake Champlain Basin from the neighboring Connecticut River watershed by expanding
education and outreach on detection and spread prevention methods;
• Monitoring the Basin for possible introduction of the invasive species: Asian clam and
spiny waterflea;
• Monitoring the population of alewives, a recent invasive species affecting Lake
Champlain, and expanding efforts to educate the public on the perils of transporting
baitfish, harmonizing baitfish regulations in Vermont and New York, as well as working
to remove and/or prevent the entry or dispersal of this and other invasive plants, fish, and
invertebrates in the basin;
• Working with partners, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State
Canal Corporation, to devise means to reduce the likelihood that new invasive species
can enter Lake Champlain from the Great Lakes through the Champlain Canal;
• Continuing work to understand the high seasonal concentrations of toxic cyanobacteria,
particularly microcystin, in the northern reaches of Lake Champlain by monitoring the
dynamics of its species composition, concentration, and toxicity levels; reporting on its
potential health impacts; and providing necessary information to the health departments
of New York and Vermont to close beaches, drinking water intakes, or take other actions
as necessary;
• Implementing recommendations resulting from the climate change studies (water quality,
precipitation, flow) to reduce the impacts of climate change on water quality in the Lake
Champlain Basin; and
• Developing new approaches to stormwater control from urban areas in conjunction with
state partners.
312
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis sub-
objective and the Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,566.0) This reduces congressional directed increase in funding in FY 2011 for the
Lake Champlain Basin.
Statutory Authority:
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act; CWA; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-Canada
Agreements; National Heritage Areas Act of 2006; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2000 and 2007.
313
-------
Geographic Program: Other
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities; Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,223.2
$5,223.2
4.3
FY2010
Enacted
$7,273.0
$7,273.0
10.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$4,687.0
$4,687.0
8.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,586.0)
($2,586.0)
-1.5
Program Project Description:
EPA targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by
environmental problems. Under this program, the Agency works, develops and implements
community-based approaches to mitigate diffuse sources of pollution and cumulative risk for
geographic areas. The Agency also fosters community efforts to build consensus and mobilize
local resources to target highest risks.
The Northwest Forest Program supports interagency coordination, watershed assessment,
conservation, and restoration efforts across five states in the Pacific Northwest. Key elements of
the program include two collaborative, watershed-scale monitoring programs that help
characterize watershed conditions across 70 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) administered lands in the Northwest. In addition to providing status and
trend information for aquatic and riparian habitats, the two monitoring programs help support
adaptive management and state water quality/watershed health programs.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program through a collaborative and voluntary
effort, strives to restore the ecological health of the Basin by developing and funding restoration
projects within the sixteen parishes in the basin. It also supports related scientific and public
education projects.
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
Through the CARE program, EPA provides funding tools and technical support that enable
underserved communities to create collaborative partnerships to take effective actions to address
local environmental problems. The on-the-ground support and funding help to reduce toxic
pollution from all sources, revitalize underserved areas and improve the health of communities
across the nation in sustainable ways. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
issued a positive evaluation of the CARE demonstration program in May 2009 observing "...the
CARE program complements EPA regulatory strategies with place-based strategies—strategies
that consider the local context in which environmental decisions are made and effects are felt."
The NAPA Panel believes that the CARE approach represents a "next step" in environmental
improvement and protection." The NAPA Panel concluded that the CARE program successfully
314
-------
demonstrated that the concept works well to combine EPA expertise with community capacity-
building to deliver funding and assistance to address risks from all sources of toxics in
under served communities.
Since its launch in 2005, the CARE program has awarded 68 grants to communities across 35
states with over 1,500 partners engaged for a total of $12 million in grants. CARE delivers
funding through cooperative agreements. In the smaller Level I agreements, the community,
working with EPA, creates a collaborative problem-solving group of community stakeholders.
That group assesses the community's toxic exposure, environmental problems and priorities, and
begins to identify potential solutions. In the larger Level II agreements, the community, working
with EPA, selects and funds projects that reduce risk and improve the environment in the
community. The CARE program is ending its successful demonstration period. The cooperative
agreements issued under the demonstration authorities of the 7 environmental statutes may not
be used to support day-to-day program implementation. EPA is requesting authority to
implement the CARE program to continue serving communities across the nation.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by
diffuse sources of pollution. These collaborative and transparent community-based approaches
will decrease the cumulative risk for geographic areas. EPA's FY 2011 efforts will focus on the
following:
Northwest Forest
Federal and state partners implement shared responsibilities for aquatic monitoring and
watershed assessment. Efforts include refinement and utilization of monitoring approaches and
modeling tools and increased integration of monitoring framework designs, monitoring
protocols, and watershed health indicators. In FY 2011, EPA will invest $1.3 million in the
Northwest Forest program for the following activities:
• Continue stream reach and watershed condition/trend monitoring in 2,000 sub-watersheds
in California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington;
• Use remote sensed data and GIS data layers and field data to complete annual status and
trend updates on a subset of 1,300 watersheds in western Oregon, Washington, and
Northern California and to support a five-year trend assessment on all 1,300 watersheds;
• Utilize upslope analysis, in-channel assessments, emerging research, and decision support
models to inform management decisions and refine future monitoring efforts;
• Compile temperature and macroinvertebrate data from monitored streams to support state
water quality and aquatic habitat reporting;
315
-------
• Complete/utilize field reviews of grazing activities and evaluate stream and riparian
conditions to tie back to monitoring trends and necessary changes to management
actions;
• Refine shade models to assist managers in prioritizing restoration opportunities to address
stream temperature issues; and
• Utilize aquatic monitoring to detect invasive species in streams and riparian areas.
Lake Pontchartrain
The program will work to restore the ecological health of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. In FY
2011, EPA will invest $978,000 in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin program for the following
activities:
• Implement the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program Comprehensive Management Plan
(LPBCMP) which supports the following goals:
o Planning and design of consolidated wastewater treatment systems which
support the Agency's Sustainable Infrastructure goal;
o Repair and replacement studies to improve existing wastewater systems; and
o Investigation and design of storm water management systems.
• Conducting outreach and public education projects that address the goals of the
LPBCMP, such as:
o Improving the management of animal waste lagoons by educating and
assisting the agricultural community on lagoon maintenance techniques;
o Protecting and restoring critical habitats and encouraging sustainable growth
by providing information and guidance on habitat protection and green
development techniques; and
o Reducing pollution at its source.
CARE
With a FY 2011 investment of $2.4 million in the CARE program, EPA will continue to provide
technical support for underserved and other communities, help them use collaborative processes
to select and implement local actions, and award Federal funding for projects to reduce exposure
to toxic pollutants and local environmental problems. EPA is requesting new grant authority to
continue this program beyond the demonstration phase.
In FY 2011, the CARE program will provide support to communities to help them understand
and improve their local environments and health by:
• Selecting and awarding assistance agreements to create and strengthen local partnerships,
local capacity, and civic engagement to improve local environments and health, and to
ensure sustainability of environmental health efforts over time;
316
-------
• Providing technical support and training to help CARE communities build partnerships,
improve their understanding of environmental risks from all sources, set priorities, and
take actions to reduce risks;
• Improving community access to EPA programs and helping communities utilize these
programs to reduce risks;
• Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Centers for Disease Control's
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, to improve support for communities
by coordinating the efforts of multiple Federal agencies working at the community level
to improve environmental health; and
• Conducting outreach to share lessons learned by CARE communities and encouraging
other communities to build partnerships and take actions to reduce risks.
Performance Targets:
Work under these programs supports the Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$244.0) This reflects the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$522.0) This reduces congressional directed funding in FY 2010 for the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. This reduction will reduce EPA support for
the implementation of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program Comprehensive
Management Plan, including water quality and infrastructure improvements, and coastal
restoration.
• (-$1820.0 / - 1.5 FTE) This reduces congressional directed funding in FY 2010 for the
Potomac Highlands initiative and includes a reduction of 1.5 FTE and decreased
associated payroll of $180.0.
Statutory Authority:
The Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 2000; CWA; Water Resources Development Act of
1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000; RCRA; CERCLA; Economy Act of 1932;
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; CAA; SWDA; TSCA; FIFRA; Pollution Prevention Act;
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and National Environmental Education Act.
New grant authority for CARE is requested in the FY 2011 President's Request.
317
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
318
-------
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,983.0
$6,983.0
13.9
FY2010
Enacted
$6,926.0
$6,926.0
17.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$4,324.0
$4,324.0
16.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,602.0)
($2,602.0)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports workforce health and safety in the event of an Incident of National
Significance (INS) and a Continuity of Operations (COOP) or pandemic situation and enables
the upgrading and standardization of technology, with particular emphasis on the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) infrastructure. It also enables video contact between localities,
headquarters, Regional Offices, and laboratories in emergency situations.
The Homeland Security Strategy and use of an Agency-wide Homeland Security Collaborative
Network (HSCN) support the Agency's ability to effectively implement its broad range of
homeland security responsibilities, ensure consistent development and implementation of
homeland security policies and procedures, avoid duplication, and build a network of partners.
This program also serves to capitalize on the concept of "dual-benefits" so that EPA's homeland
security efforts enhance and integrate with EPA's core environmental programs that serve to
protect human health and the environment.
Homeland Security information technology efforts are closely coordinated with the Agency-wide
Information Security and Infrastructure activities, which are managed in the Information Security
and IT/Data Management programs.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will develop a homeland security policy for planning, prevention, preparedness, and
response for nationally significant incidents. EPA's homeland security efforts will focus on
water security, decontamination issues, emergency response, and internal preparedness.
EPA will ensure that interagency intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are
met. This will be achieved through coordination with the U.S. Intelligence Community,
including the Office of the Director for National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland
319
-------
Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Department of Defense, and the White House National and Homeland Security
Councils. EPA also will track emerging national/homeland security issues in order to anticipate
and avoid crisis situations and target the Agency's efforts proactively against threats to the
United States.
EPA's FY 2011 resources will support the Agency's rapid response infrastructure by delivering
network capacity, expanding the Agency's bandwidth functions (e.g., Voice over IP), and other
related IPv6 improvements. These capabilities will allow secure, reliable, and high-speed data
access and communication to first responders, on-scene coordinators, emergency response teams,
headquarters support teams, and investigators wherever they are located (regardless of what
jurisdiction they operate under) and support EPA's Homeland Security responsibilities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$58.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$2,490.0) This reflects a reduction to the Agency's homeland security specific IT
Infrastructure security efforts related to the deployment of wireless infrastructure in
support of emergency response and homeland security activities.
• (-$159.07-1.0 FTE) This change includes $159.0 in associated payroll and reflects
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
skills, and Agency Priorities by streamlining administrative management.
• (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Homeland Security Presidential Directives; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP); CERCLA; RCRA; SOW A; CWA; CAA; TSCA; FIFRA; Bio
Terrorism Act of 2003; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act; Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-
201).
320
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6, 83 7.2
$23,961.7
$1,767.0
$32,565.9
47.8
FY2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,415.0
$16,105.0
$0.0
$18,520.0
28.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($4,421.0)
($6,921.0)
($1,760.0)
($13,102.0)
-21.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes a number of EPA activities that coordinate and support the protection of
the nation's critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. EPA activities support effective
information sharing and dissemination to help protect critical water infrastructure.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Information Sharing Networks & Water Security
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to build its capacity to identify and respond to threats to critical
national water infrastructure. EPA's wastewater and drinking water security efforts will
continue to support the water sector by providing access to information sharing tools and
mechanisms that provide timely information on contaminant properties, water treatment
effectiveness, detection technologies, analytical protocols, and laboratory capabilities for use in
responding to a water contamination event. EPA will continue to support effective
communication conduits to disseminate threat and incident information and to serve as a
clearing-house for sensitive information. EPA promotes information sharing between the water
sector and such groups as environmental professionals and scientists, law enforcement, public
health agencies, the intelligence community, and technical assistance providers. Through such
exchange, water systems can obtain up-to-date information on current technologies in water
security, accurately assess their vulnerabilities to terror acts, and work cooperatively with public
health officials, first responders, and law enforcement officials to respond effectively in the event
of an emergency.
321
-------
EPA continues to partner with available information sharing networks to promote drinking water
and wastewater utilities' access to up-to-date security information. In FY 2011, EPA will
continue efforts to increase the water sector's participation in these critical networks. This effort
will ensure that these utilities have access to a comprehensive range of important materials,
including tools, training, and protocols, some of which may be sensitive and therefore not
generally available through other means. In addition to providing a vehicle for utilities to access
these materials, EPA will continue to develop materials to ensure that utilities have the most
updated and critical information. This work also will enable water utilities of all sizes to gain
access to a rapid notification system. Participating utilities will then receive alerts about changes
in the homeland security advisory level or to regional and national trends in certain types of
water-related incidents. Access to such information sharing networks allows the water sector not
only to improve their understanding of the latest water security and resiliency protocols and
threats, but also to reduce their risk by enhancing their ability to prepare for an emergency. The
FY 2011 request level for the information sharing networks is $1.9 million.
EPA also supports the Regional Offices' emergency response activities. The program provides
specific skills trainings (e.g., ICS Group Supervisor, damage assessment, health and safety,
reimbursement protocols, etc.), exercises, and personal protective equipment relevant to
preparing for a water infrastructure breach.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$694.0) This reduction reflects decreased Federal support for the water information
sharing networks as it transitions to a subscription based program by FY 2011.
• (-$1,114.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects the development of effective modeling
methodologies to demonstrate the effects of air threats to air quality in the United States
for use in emergency response situations. This reduction includes 1.0 FTE and associated
payroll of $123.0.
• (-$2,616.0 / -11.8 FTE) Beginning in FY 2011, EPA will not need to maintain separate
capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for counter -
terrorism related investigations. This reduction reflects the increased capacity of other
agencies to handle the environmental forensics work associated with potential homeland
security related incidents. This reduction includes 11.8 FTE and associated payroll of
$1,980.0.
322
-------
Statutory Authority:
NCP; CERCLA; SOW A; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and
Response Act of 2002; EPCRA; CAA; RCRA; TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation; 1983 La Paz Agreement on U.S.-Mexico Border Region; Pollution Prosecution
Act; Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
323
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,054.1
$41,771.8
$55,479.4
$100,305.3
187.8
FY2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,012.0
$34,598.0
$42,274.0
$78,884.0
181.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,411.0)
($7,059.0)
($11,306.0)
($19,776.0)
6.8
Program Project Description:
EPA plays a lead role in protecting U.S. citizens and the environment from the effects of attacks
that release chemical, biological, and radiological agents. EPA's Homeland Security Emergency
Preparedness and Response program develops and maintains an Agency-wide capability to
prepare for and respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with emphasis on those that may
involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). EPA continues to increase the state of
preparedness for homeland security incidents. The response to chemical agents is different from
the response to biological agents, but for both, the goals are to facilitate preparedness, guide the
appropriate response by first responders, ensure safe re-occupancy of buildings or other
locations, and protect the production of crops, livestock, and food in the U.S. In the case of
chemical agents, EPA is developing new information to assist emergency planners and first
responders in assessing immediate hazards.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Emergency planners and first responders use Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) to
prepare for and deal with chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. Following
September 11, 2001, a series of investments in the Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery chemical program augmented resources to support accelerated development of
Proposed AEGL values.
Since FY 2009, the AEGLs program has shifted emphasis from producing Proposed values to
creating Interim and ultimately Final status via peer review by the National Academies of
Science. In FY 2011, the emphasis will be on finalizing already developed AEGL values. By the
close of FY 2011, EPA expects to have published Final values for at least 70 chemicals. The
development of proposed values for existing chemicals of concern is expected to be completed
by the end of FY 2010. Any proposed values will be raised to Interim status within one year of
324
-------
being proposed. An additional 30 chemicals are under consideration for addition to the list of
chemicals targeted for AEGLs development, but a decision is pending on whether to add them.
For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.
In addition, EPA is working with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to test
the efficacy of readily available chemical pesticide products for effectiveness against Foreign
Animal Disease agents and their use in decontamination of food and agricultural facilities.
Finally, EPA is participating in Agency-wide efforts to build environmental laboratory capacity
and capability.
Performance Targets:
This program has consistently exceeded its performance targets in past years in developing
Proposed AEGL values. In FY 2011, the program will transition to working solely on Final
AEGL values. This measure can be found in Program Project: Toxic Substances - Chemical
Risk and Review.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$13.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$15.0) This reflects reduced costs for IT security and integration services.
• (-$1,409.0) This reflects decreased support for homeland security pesticides related
activities. This reduction is possible since EPA has assisted DHS and other agencies in
completing guidance on procedures, plans, and technologies to restore airports following
a biological attack, and completed the development of a risk management framework for
decision-makers for restoration and recovery from a biological incident, including
response to and recovery from Bacillus anthracis contamination of a large urban area.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA;
SARA; TSCA; Oil Pollution Act; Pollution Prevention Act; RCRA; EPCRA; SOW A; CWA;
CAA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; Ocean Dumping Act; Public Health Service Act, as amended; 42
U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Executive Order 10831 (1970); Public Law 86-373; PRIA.
325
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,648.8
$587.0
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$16,999.3
5.1
FY2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,391.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,249.0
3.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$22.0
$1.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Homeland Security program is composed of the following three distinct elements: (1)
Physical Security - ensuring EPA's physical structures and critical assets are secure and
operational with adequate security procedures in place to safeguard staff in the event of an
emergency; (2) Personnel Security - initiating and adjudicating personnel security investigations;
and (3) National Security Information - classifying and safeguarding sensitive mission critical
data.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will focus on issuing secure and reliable identification (smart cards) to
all employees and select non-Federal workers. Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
201-1, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, establishes the technical
specifications for the smart cards. Additionally, EPA will continue its physical security
activities on a regular basis, including conducting security vulnerability assessments and
mitigation at EPA's facilities nationwide.
Personnel security will play a major role in the Agency's new EPA Personnel Access Security
System (EPASS) deployment. Concurrent with new EPASS responsibilities, the personnel
security program will continue to: perform position risk designations; prescreen prospective new
hires; process national security clearances; and maintain personnel security files and
information.
Regarding national security information, FY 2011 activities will include: classifying,
declassifying, and safeguarding classified information; identifying and marking of classified
326
-------
information; performing education, training, and outreach; and conducting audits and self
inspections. In addition, certification and accreditation of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) and
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) will continue.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$23.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$17.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$16.0) This reflects a realignment of general expenses and contracts to support
administrative costs.
Statutory Authority:
The National Security Strategy; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;
Executive Orders 10450, 12958, and 12968; Title V CFR Parts 731 and 732.
327
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
328
-------
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Program Area: Indoor Air
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,347.1
$371.0
$5,718.1
39.9
FY2010
Enacted
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,615.0
$461.0
$6,076.0
37.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($251.0)
$8.0
($243.0)
-2.3
Program Project Description:
EPA's non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes actions to reduce the public's health risk
from indoor radon (second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer). EPA and the Surgeon
General recommend that people do a simple home test and, if levels above EPA's guidelines are
confirmed, reduce those levels by home mitigation using inexpensive and proven techniques.
EPA also recommends that new homes be built using radon-resistant features in areas where
there is elevated radon. This voluntary program promotes partnerships between national
organizations, the private sector, and state, local, and Tribal government programs to achieve
radon risk reduction.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will:
• Continue to partner with national and private sector organizations, as well as state, local,
and Tribal government organizations to reduce radon exposure;
• Work with states, tribes, and localities to improve their radon programs to increase risk
reduction;
• Continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business
in the marketplace; and
• Improve scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on
radon in conjunction with partners.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to focus on radon risk reduction in homes and schools.
EPA will use information dissemination, social marketing techniques, and partnerships with
influential public health and environmental organizations to drive action at the national level.
EPA will continue to promote public action to test homes for indoor radon, fix homes when
levels are high, and build homes with radon-resistant features.
329
-------
EPA also will continue its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action. As
part of this outreach, EPA communicates risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences
that demonstrate the substantial risks associated with radon exposure.
The Indoor Air program is not regulatory. Instead, EPA works toward its goal by conducting
research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary education and
outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements and
improving transparency by making state radon grantee performance data available to the public
via a website or other easily accessible means. For more information on this program, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/radon.
The majority of Federal resources directed to radon risk reduction are allotted to states under the
State Indoor Radon Grants program. EPA strategically employs its programmatic resources to
underwrite its national leadership of the Federal/state/private coalition attacking national radon
risk. EPA targets its efforts to public outreach and education activities designed to increase the
public health effectiveness of state and private efforts. This includes support for national public
information campaigns that attract millions of dollars in donated air time, identification and
dissemination of "best practices" from the highest achieving states for transfer across the nation,
public support for local and state adoption of radon prevention standards in building codes,
coordination of national voluntary standards (e.g., mitigation and construction protocols) for
adoption by states and the radon industry, and numerous other activities strategically selected to
promote individual action to test and mitigate homes and promote radon resistant new
construction.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Cumulative number of
existing homes with an
operating mitigation
system (ROMS)
compared to the
estimated number of
homes at or above
EPA's 4pCi/L action
level.
FY 2009
Target
11.5
FY 2009
Actual
12
FY 2010
Target
12
FY2011
Target
12.5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Total number of all
new single-family
homes (SFH) built in
high radon potential
areas (zone 1)
compared to new
homes in zone 1 built
with mitigation-ready
systems (radon-
FY 2009
Target
31.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
33
FY2011
Target
34.5
Units
Percent
330
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
reducing features).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
In FY 2011, EPA's performance targets are: 1) that 12.5 percent of single-family homes, above
EPA's action level, will have operating radon mitigation systems and 2) that 34.5 percent of
single family homes are built with mitigation ready systems in high radon potential areas. EPA
estimates that by meeting these targets, the program will prevent over 900 future premature
cancer deaths annually.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$250.0 / -2.3 FTE) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of
living for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
workforce costs. This change also reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
• (+$3.0) This increase in contract and grant funding will support radon outreach efforts.
• (-$4.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; IRAA, Section 306; 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 Section 10.
331
-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Program Area: Indoor Air
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,335.2
$706.5
$25,041.7
65.7
FY2010
Enacted
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$22,156.0
$768.0
$22,924.0
69.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,397.0
$6.0
$1,403.0
6.0
Program Project Description:
In this non-regulatory, voluntary program, EPA works through partnerships with non-
governmental organizations and Federal partners as well as professional organizations to educate
and encourage individuals, schools, industry, the health care community, and others to take
action to reduce health risks from poor indoor air quality. Air inside homes, schools, and
workplaces can be more polluted than outdoor air in the largest and most industrialized cities.48
People typically spend close to 90 percent of their time indoors and may be more at risk from
indoor than outdoor air pollution.49
Additionally, EPA uses technology transfer to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of
buildings, including schools, homes, and workplaces, to promote healthier indoor air. EPA
provides technical assistance that directly supports states, local governments and public health
organizations.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to promote comprehensive asthma care that integrates
management of environmental asthma triggers and health care services. EPA is requesting
additional resources to increase its work to promote community adoption of comprehensive
asthma care programs through the Communities in Action for Asthma-Friendly Environments
Campaign, as part of the Agency's Healthy Communities: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools
Initiative. EPA will place a particular emphasis on protecting "at risk" populations, including
children, low-income, and minority populations disproportionately impacted by poor asthma
outcomes. Expansion of the Campaign also will deliver effective asthma management strategies
to improve and develop new, targeted school-based asthma programs, particularly in low-income
school districts. EPA will continue to work in partnership and collaboration with other Federal
agencies, the health care community, and state and local organizations to promote smoke-free
48 U.S. EPA. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Summary and Analysis Volume I. EPA 600-6-
87-002a. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
49U.S. EPA. 1989. Report to Congress onlndoorAir Quality, Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA
40-6-89-001C. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
332
-------
homes and cars, emphasizing protection for young children through collaboration with the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Head Start.
In FY 2011, EPA will increase its work to create healthier learning environments through
communications and outreach, technical assistance, tools, and resources to the school community
to promote adoption of Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools (IAQ TfS), or comparable indoor
air quality management and design programs. EPA will work in partnership with non-profit
organizations to engage school officials, school nurses, teachers, facility managers, planners, and
parents to improve indoor air quality (IAQ) in schools in communities across the country, in
particular in urban, Tribal and other at-need areas.
EPA also will promote a suite of "best practice" guidance for a range of building types, including
guidance for the control and management of moisture and mold, comprehensive best practice
guidance for IAQ during each phase of the building cycle. Additional guidance will focus on best
maintenance practices for indoor environmental quality and ensuring good IAQ in concert with
increased energy efficiency in buildings.
Internationally, EPA will continue the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air to provide technology
transfer to developing countries so that individuals and organizations within those countries have
the tools to address human health risk due to indoor smoke from cooking and heating fires.
Since 2003, the indoor air program has documented nearly three million households across the
globe, nearly 20 million people, who have adopted clean and efficient cooking and heating
technologies through the Partnership's programs.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2009
Target
>20
FY 2009
Actual
No Data
Avail
FY 2010
Target
>30
FY2011
Target
>30
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2009
Target
2,000
FY 2009
Actual
4,614
FY 2010
Target
2,000
FY2011
Target
2,000
Units
Professionals
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Estimated annual
number of schools
establishing indoor air
FY 2009
Target
1,000
FY 2009
Actual
2,062
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY2011
Target
1,000
Units
Schools
333
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
EPA will continue to work under its long term strategic goal for 2014 that 7.2 million people
with asthma will be taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental
triggers. EPA's goal is to motivate an additional 400,000 people with asthma to take these
actions in 2011, bringing the total number to approximately 6.1 million people with asthma who
are taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers. EPA will
work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted populations and the
overall population.
EPA also will continue to work toward its long term 2012 goal that 40,000 primary and
secondary schools (35 percent of schools) will be implementing effective indoor air quality
management programs consistent with EPA guidance. The Indoor Air program will continue to
focus on making efficiency improvements in response to recommendations from OMB. EPA will
track progress against the efficiency measures included in the tables above triennially with the
next planned report date for asthma in late 2009 and for schools in 2013.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$234.0 ) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$29.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$1,192.07 +6.0 FTE) This reflects additional resources as part of the Healthy
Communities: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative, including 6.0 FTE with
associated payroll of $812.0. The increased resources will focus on improving and
developing new, targeted school-based asthma programs through improved use of
existing information and expansion of the Communities in Action for Asthma-Friendly
Environments Campaign. This will expand the current Communities in Action Network
of 400 community-based programs and make best practice strategies available to schools
across the nation.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
334
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
335
-------
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,832.4
$6,832.4
12.1
FY2010
Enacted
$7,100.0
$7,100.0
11.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$10,159.0
$10,159.0
25.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,059.0
$3,059.0
14.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency coordinates and advances protection of children's health through regulatory
development, science policy, program implementation, communication and effective results
measurement to make protecting children an explicit part of the EPA mission to protect human
health. The children's health protection effort is directed by the 1997 Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children's Health from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks and the 1996
EPA document National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats.
Legislative mandates such as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Safe
Drinking Water Amendments of 1996, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 also directs
the Agency to protect children and other vulnerable life stages.50
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will increase focus on environmental health in schools, under the Agency's
Healthy Communities: Clean, Green and Healthy schools initiative, to work with states, tribes,
and local governments to effectively incorporate environmental health considerations of children
in schools. The program will ensure that non-governmental organizations and the public (family
members, health care providers, community leaders, etc.) have and use reliable/valid scientific
information and exposure prevention techniques and tools when making decisions that impact
the health of children. (In FY 2011, the Children and other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination program will be funded at $7.62 million and 13.9 FTE.)
50 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directs EPA to produce guidelines on the safe siting of schools and
guidelines to states on healthy, high-performance schools in order to protect children from environmental hazards where they
leam.
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to strengthen protection of children by considering the risk to
the most vulnerable populations and lifestages when setting standards.
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to include stricter safety standards for pesticides, especially for infants and
children, and a complete reassessment of all existing pesticide tolerances.
336
-------
The following are examples of planned activities:
• Using authority provided by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
establish a state grants program funded at about $1.9 million to support states and
communities in the implementation of strategies to create healthier school facilities and
learning environments by expanding adoption of existing clean and healthy school
programs.
• Provide focused outreach and technical assistance to school districts to increase adoption
of EPA's Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (Healthy SEAT) and to
increase deployment of EPA's programmatic school environmental health tools (e.g. IAQ
Tools for Schools, School Chemical Cleanout Campaign, Integrated Pest Management).
• Improve and develop new, targeted school-based asthma programs through improved use
of existing information and expansion of the Communities in Action for Asthma-Friendly
Environments Campaign.
• Increase transparency and coordination with states, local communities, schools and the
general public by supporting a strong communications and outreach effort to share
information and provide technical assistance, tools and materials to schools and
stakeholder groups.
• Improving coordination across the Agency will also ensure that EPA's policies and
programs explicitly consider and use the most up-to-date data and methods for protecting
children from heightened public health risks. In addition, EPA plans to serve as a co-lead
of an inter-agency effort with the Department of Education and the Department of Health
and Human Services to improve Federal government wide support of "clean, green, and
healthy schools", implementing legislative mandates and coordinating outreach and
technical assistance.
• Provide information and technical assistance to States and communities on emerging
children's environmental health issues concerning schools.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 4.2: Communities. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project; however, the Agency will begin
developing measures specific to children's environmental health in FY 2010, and will continue
this effort in FY2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$628.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (+$2,290.0 / +11.0 FTE) These resources include $1,384.0 in associated payroll and
11.0 FTE, and will support the coordination and implementation of EISA, providing
technical assistance to states and communities on implementation of voluntary school
337
-------
citing and environmental health guidelines. This also is part of the Agency's cross-
program Healthy Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools.
• ( +$1,250.0 / +2.0 FTE) These resources include $286.0 in associated payroll and 2.0
FTE, and will support the Agency's cross-program Healthy Communities Initiative:
Clean, Green and Healthy Schools. Funding is for coordinating expertise and efforts
across programs to provide technical assistance, develop and implement tools and
models, and support communication and outreach.
• (+$147.0 / +1.0 FTE) These resources include $147.0 in associated payroll and reflect
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
skills, and Agency priorities. The FTE supports enhanced Regional implementation of
the Children's Health program.
Statutory Authority:
EO 13045; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
338
-------
Environmental Education
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,762.9
$8,762.9
15.2
FY2010
Enacted
$9,038.0
$9,038.0
17.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,448.0
$6,448.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,590.0)
($2,590.0)
-17.6
Program Project Description:
This program ensures that Environmental Education (EE), based on sound science and effective
education practices, is used as a tool to promote the protection of human health and the
environment, and to encourage student academic achievement. EPA implements the National
Environmental Education Act by providing leadership and support, and working in partnership
with K-12 schools, colleges and universities, Federal and state agencies, and community
organizations to assess needs, establish priorities, and leverage resources. The EE program's
strategic plan, developed and revised in collaboration with the program's multiple internal and
external partners, establishes five goals that guide the program:
1. Promote the use of EE in schools and communities to improve academic achievement and
environmental stewardship;
2. Increase the capacity of states to develop and deliver comprehensive statewide EE
programs;
3. Promote research and evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of EE in improving
environmental quality and student academic achievement;
4. Improve the quality, access, and coordination of EE information, resources, and
programs; and
5. Promote and encourage environmental careers.
Please see the program website for additional information (www.epa.gov/enviroed).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, a resource level of $6.45 million and 0.0 FTE support EE. Other existing EE
resources are shifted from the EE program to the Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental &
External Relations to more effectively manage EE activities through placement of these
resources in the appropriate oversight function. This change will affectively increase the
Agency's ability to focus on the management of assistance and programmatic resources
supporting EE. This change was necessary because due to payroll increases, it is now
339
-------
impossible to meet mandated staffing and the required 25 percent ceiling as set forth in the
National Environmental Education Act, without increasing programmatic operations.)
The National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) provides the foundation for the activities the
Agency conducts with appropriated funds. Major programs and activities include:
• National Environmental Education Grant Program;
• National Educator Training Program;
• National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship Program;
• President's Environmental Youth Awards;
• Enhancing monitoring, evaluation, and research efforts to better demonstrate program
impact and results;
• Inter- and intra- agency coordination: providing technical assistance, funding, and
coordination to improve EE across EPA and the Federal government;
• Managing the National Environmental Education Advisory Council and the Federal Task
Force on Environmental Education;
• Providing funding to the National Environmental Education Foundation.
All activities directly support the EE program's strategic plan which includes measureable
objectives, and clearly identified outputs, outcomes and performance measures for each of the
corresponding goals. The EE program's strategic plan ensures the program is linked to the
Agency's strategic plan and serves as the foundation for program planning, budgeting, and
performance and accountability processes.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,587.0 / -17.6 FTE) This change includes -17.6 FTE and -$2,255.0 in associated
payroll, and reflects the transfer of existing FTE from the Environmental Education
program to Congressional, Intergovernmental & External Relations to more effectively
manage environmental education activities through placement of these resources in the
appropriate oversight function. This change will effectively increase the Agency's ability
to focus on the management of assistance and programmatic resources supporting
environmental education activities. This change was necessary due to payroll increases,
it is now impossible to meet mandated staffing and the required 25 percent ceiling
without impacting program operations.
• (-$3.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
NEEA (PL 101-619).
340
-------
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$48,743.0
$7.3
$48,750.3
350.8
FY2010
Enacted
$51,944.0
$0.0
$51,944.0
364.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$57,473.0
$0.0
$57,473.0
390.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$5,529.0
$0.0
$5,529.0
26.5
Program/Project Description:
The Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations program project provides
resources to several headquarters and Regional offices that help EPA to meet its commitments to
protect human health and the environment. The activities include Headquarters and Regional
Congressional and Legislative Support associated with responding to Congressional requests for
information and providing written and oral testimony, briefings, and briefing materials. This
program also provides support for the Immediate Office of the Administrator, public affairs,
administrative services, correspondence control, the management of EPA's Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) process, and environmental education's management and oversight
functions.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Immediate Offices of the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Regional
Administrators support the achievement of the Agency's strategic goals by communicating
Agency proposals, actions, policy, data, research, and information through mass media, print
publications, and via the Web. (In FY 2011, the Headquarters Office of the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator will be funded at a level of $5.4 million and 34.8 FTE.)
The headquarters and Regional Congressional and Intergovernmental offices lead EPA's
interactions with Congress, Governors and other state and local officials. In FY 2011, these
offices will prepare EPA officials for hearings and meetings with members of Congress, oversee
responses to written inquiries from members of Congress, manage Senate confirmation hearings
for political appointees, and coordinate with the White House's Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs and Council for Environmental Quality. The Agency's state and local
relations will be supported through management of the Administrator's Local Government
341
-------
Advisory Committee (LGAC) and the Small Community Advisory Committee (SCAC). These
activities will help to ensure that EPA's policies and regulations consider specific impacts on
state and local governments and to more fully integrate the National Environmental Performance
Partnerships System (NEPPS) framework and principles into the Agency's core business
practices. (In FY 2011, the headquarters Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations will be funded at a level of $8.2 million and 58.8 FTE.)
In addition, this program has oversight responsibility for the Agency's FACA committee
management process. This work will ensure that EPA's 49 Federal advisory committees are in
compliance with the FACA requirements and the General Services Administration Committee
Management Secretariat's administrative guidelines. In FY 2011, the Cooperative Environmental
Management (OCEM) program will manage five FACA committees, develop a framework for
measuring the effectiveness of EPA's FACA committees, and ensure that all new or renewed
committee charters include expected outputs/outcomes and performance measures. (In FY 2011,
the Agency's Cooperative Environmental Management program (OCEM) will be funded at a
level of $2.1 million and 11.1 FTE.)
In FY 2011, EPA headquarters and Regional Offices of Public Affairs will utilize multimedia
and Web applications for international and domestic populations and local, state and Tribal
governments to easily access high quality, timely, coherent, and comprehensive information
concerning the Agency's activities and policies. These offices strive to increase the public's
awareness and perception regarding environmental issues, as well as social, technological, and
scientific solutions. Public affairs will utilize the Web to reach multiethnic and multilingual
populations. (In FY 2011, the headquarters Public Affairs Office will be $7.3 million and 52.1
FTE.)
As the central administrative management component of the Office of the Administrator (AO),
Executive Services provides advice, tools, and assistance for the organization's human resources
management, budget and financial management, and information technology management and
security. In FY 2011, Executive Services will work to maximize the effective utilization of
AO's resources by implementing recommendations associated workforce and succession
planning, addressing staffing needs, conducting workload and budget projections, and managing
training and career development programs. (In FY 2011, the Office of Executive Services
(OES) will be funded at a level of $3.2 million and 21.0 FTE.)
The Executive Secretariat manages the Administrator's and Deputy Administrator's
correspondence and records, including identification and maintenance of vital records, FOIA,
and the Correspondence Management System. (In FY 2011, the Executive Secretariat will be
funded at a level of $1.9 million and 13.6 FTE.)
EPA is proposing to become more efficient through the establishment of Regional "Centers of
Excellence." Rather than have every Region support a program, the Agency will establish
Regional subject matter experts for a few programs whose practical, "on the ground" program
implementation work will allow them to serve as expert resources, providing best practice
information and answering specific questions for other regions. The resources have been set
centrally to ensure that they can be allocated to the highest priorities throughout the year as the
342
-------
Agency adapts to this new approach. In FY 2011, this project will be funded at a level of $1.5
million to implement this new initiative, which will benefit the entire Agency.
Other existing Environmental Education (EE) resources are shifted from the EE program to the
Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental & External Relations to more effectively manage EE
activities through placement of these resources in the appropriate oversight function. This
change will affectively increase the Agency's ability to focus on the management of assistance
and programmatic resources supporting EE. This change was necessary to adequately cover the
payroll needs associated with the mandated staffing within the required 25 percent resource
ceiling under the National Environmental Education Act without decreasing programmatic
funding. In FY 2011, Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations will fund the
management and oversight functions for the Environmental Education program at $2.5 million
and 19.6FTE.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$666.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$31.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$335.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and teleconferencing.
• (-$99.0) This reflects a decrease to contract support resources for the program.
• (+$1,500.0) This funding provides support for the Regional Centers of Excellence which
will provide concentrated programmatic expertise across Regions and offices to produce
greater collaboration, integrated research, and high quality results.
• (+$919.07 +7.0 FTE) These pre-existing FTE were realigned from across the Agency to
advance the Administrator's priorities of openness and transparency in the Agency's
expanded communications and outreach initiatives. These FTE will enhance EPA's
ability to maximize cutting-edge technologies, including Web 2.0 and social media, in its
communications in order to further the Agency's goals and priorities. This change
includes 7.0 FTE, and $919.0 in associated payroll.
• (-$13.07 -0.1 FTE) This change includes -$13.0 in associated payroll and -0.1 FTE, and
reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align
resources, skills and Agency priorities by streamlining administrative management.
343
-------
These resources were given to OCHP to support the Agency Healthy Communities
Initiative.
• (+$2,922.0 / +19.6 FTE) This change includes 19.6 FTE, and $2,922.0 in associated
payroll, and reflects the transfer of existing FTE from the Environmental Education
program and other parts of the Agency to more effectively manage environmental
education activities through placement of these resources in the appropriate oversight
function. This change will effectively increase the Agency's ability to focus on the
management of assistance and programmatic resources supporting environmental
education activities. This change was necessary because due to payroll increases, it is
now impossible to meet mandated staffing and the required 25 percent ceiling without
impacting program operations.
Statutory Authority:
As provided in Appropriations Act funding; FACA; EAIA; NAFTA Implementation Act;
RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA.
344
-------
Exchange Network
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$17,440.8
$922.4
$18,363.2
28.6
FY2010
Enacted
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$18,702.0
$1,433.0
$20,135.0
30.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,678.0
$0.0
$1,678.0
6.0
Program Project Description:
51
The Exchange Network (Network) is a standards-based partnership that uses the Internet to
make it possible for states, tribes, territories, EPA and other partners to share environmental data
faster, and at greater cost savings. With the Network, Federal and state environmental decision-
makers have better access to the right data when they need it. Access to the data will allow the
sharing of information, which will improve environmental protection and results across
jurisdictions. The Water Quality Exchange (WQX) project, for example, enables states to query
ambient water conditions in other states and portray the quality of an entire watershed, such as
along the Columbia, Missouri, and Susquehanna Rivers, or make decisions based on the totality
of data available, rather than just the data they have about their own particular stream reach.
The state-led Homeland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE) uses the Network to assist
environmental decision-makers and first-responders. With HERE and the Exchange Network,
emergency personnel can get the latest information about the location and contents of EPA- and
state-regulated facilities containing hazardous or toxic wastes or other points of interest that may
lie in the vicinity of a local emergency, such as a fire. In California, firefighters have used
HERE to download vital Geographic Information System (GlS)-displayed information onto their
laptops while in their fire truck on the way to a fire.
The Central Data Exchange52 (CDX) is the largest activity within the Exchange Network
program project; it is the electronic gateway through which environmental data enters the
Agency. CDX enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from
state and local governments, industry and tribes to EPA. The CDX budget supports
development, test and production infrastructure, sophisticated hardware and software, data
exchange and Web form programs, and standards-setting projects with states, tribes, and
' For more information on the Exchange Network, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/Networkg/
1 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
345
-------
territories for e-reporting, as well as significant security and quality assurance activities. By
reducing administrative burden on EPA programs, CDX helps environmental programs focus
more manpower and resources on enforcement and programmatic work, and less on data
collection and manipulation.
Other tools and services in the Central Data Exchange and Exchange Network program project
include:
• The Facility Registry System (FRS) is a widely used source of environmental data about
facilities and allows a multimedia display and integration of environmental information.
This offers obvious benefits for enforcement targeting, homeland security, data
integration, as well as other benefits such as those described above with the HERE
project, which uses FRS as a key data source.
• The National Geospatial Program supports environmental protection, planning, risk
assessment, enforcement, permitting and outreach to the public as well as emergency
response efforts by EPA, other Federal agencies, states and communities.
• The System of Registries (SOR) adds meaning to EPA's data and promotes access,
sharing and understanding of it. The SOR helps environmental professionals and the
public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and
authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable.
This program also supports efficient reporting under the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirements. Additional details can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the major focus of the Exchange Network and CDX will be to increase the amount
of critical environmental data flowing on the Network, expand the program's role in sharing data
among partners, provide increased business value through reduced burden and better quality data,
and improve data access and transparency through the use of new, innovative technologies.
These activities build on prior efforts and represent the latest work of EPA and its Network
partners to provide better data quality, timeliness and accessibility.
Also in FY 2011, EPA, states, tribes and territories will continue developing common data
standards and data formats, called schemas, so information that was previously not available, or
not easily available, can be accessed via the Exchange Network. In addition, EPA will continue
adding new features to the Network such as RSS (real simple syndication) feeds, which are news
channels Network partners can request that will promote greater data availability and encourage
broader use of the Network. These efforts will be closely coordinated with the Agency's
program offices as well as with EPA's partners on the Network. As data flows are added, the
broader use of data standards, quality tools that check data before data is submitted, reusable
schemas and other components will increase the accuracy and timeliness of the data, improve
analytical capabilities and create savings through economies of scale. Because the Central Data
Exchange is already in production and is designed to support cost effective data sharing, it can be
used to support innovative data exchanges with, and for, other agencies.
346
-------
In FY 2011, EPA will continue building linkages and Exchange Network platforms to provide
import safety information to port officers across the nation to protect against the illegal
importation of chemicals, substances, and products that could potentially harm human health and
the environment. By participating in the Automated Commercial Environment/Integrated Trade
Data System (ACE/ITDS), EPA will be able to share vital reference data from six environmental
programs (Vehicles and Engines, Ozone Depleting Substances, Fuels, Pesticides, Toxic
Substances, and Hazardous Waste) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers who
make on-the-ground admissibility decisions about cargo entering the United States at over 300
ports nationwide. These new links will help ensure that products entering the United States meet
safety and environmental standards. Data received from ACE can also be used by EPA to
improve enforcement efforts through pro-active prevention of violations versus reactive
processing once a violation has occurred. EPA, in FY 2010, will continue to facilitate combined
programmatic technology, policy, and regulatory changes and communications/outreach on
ACE/ITDS integration with our environmental mission. These efforts will facilitate meeting the
OMB directive M-07-23 for full utilization of our ACE solution by FY 2011.
CDX positions EPA to lead national efforts to understand and address climate change challenges
and policy developments. EPA's proposed Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) for the collection
of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions data from all sectors of the economy will be finalized and
approximately 13,000 entities will begin submitting reports to EPA in FY 2011. CDX
integration and analysis tools will inform future policy by facilitating facility-level listings of
GHG emissions. EPA has committed to share production results with states, via the Exchange
Network, approximately 60 days after the March 31, 2011 reporting deadline.
As a part of continuing efforts to improve efficiency, the Agency will consolidate key
components of the Agency's corporate data management product suite. These components
include the Envirofacts data warehouse, the Facility Registry System (FRS), and the System of
Registries (SoR). Functions will be streamlined and redundant processes will be eliminated.
Specifically, rather than serving the public directly through a web-based interface, these products
will be retooled solely as web services for other applications to consume. This will complete the
transition from a series of EPA-funded databases to a services-orientation allowing data
consumers to obtain secure direct service from a secondary provider. The goal is to take EPA
data systems out of their individual "stovepipes" so that data can be more easily exchanged or
integrated with data from other systems and eliminate extensive manual effort. A service
oriented architecture does this by centralizing and standardizing data exchange approaches and
protocols. The result is a virtual ability to combine data from different databases. For example,
when searching for a factory or site that emits cyclohex-l,3,5-triene (stored on the Facility
Registry System), the public would also receive a list of the different names for that substance,
such as benzene (which is stored in EPA's Substance Registry System).
EPA will use existing CDX and Exchange Network platforms and linkages to achieve
ACE/ITDS integration in a timely and cost effective way. EPA is slated, in FY 2010, to provide
interoperability between environmental data systems and the new ACE M2.3 release for Cargo
Control and Release. This is important to achieve full utilization of our ACE solution by FY
2011. The Agency's approach and proven success with CDX has generated cross-government
347
-------
interest in using this robust, secure, innovative tool to provide a low-cost, technical solution to
the challenges posed by securing American imports.
EPA will continue to improve Exchange Network data security by implementing electronic
reporting standards as required by the Federal Information Security Management Act that
support the authentication and electronic signatures of report submitters. The Agency has
recently stepped up its assistance to states, tribes and territories in implementing these standards
and will be reviewing, at a minimum, more than two dozen applications from states to obtain
approval of their electronic reporting systems during FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
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 2009
Target
60
FY 2009
Actual
59
FY 2010
Target
65
FY2011
Target
65
Units
Users
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of users from
states, tribes,
laboratories, and others
that choose CDX to
report environmental
data electronically to
EPA.
FY 2009
Target
130,000
FY 2009
Actual
184,109
FY 2010
Target
195,000
FY2011
Target
205,000
Units
Users
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of major EPA
environmental systems
that use the CDX
electronic requirements
enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality
checking of data.
FY 2009
Target
50
FY 2009
Actual
55
FY 2010
Target
60
FY2011
Target
67
Units
Systems
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$60.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$933.07+6.0 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE from IT/Data
Management. This shift more accurately reflects the work already being done.
348
-------
• (-$600.0) This reflects efficiency gains from consolidating a portion of the Envirofacts
data warehouse, the Facility Registry System, and the Systems of Registries into a single
operation under one Federal manager.
• (+$1,285.0) This is an increase to ACE/ITDS. The additional ACE/ITDS funding
supports work that will help further define the requirements and develop and test
prototypes of the needed services for interoperability with Customs and Border
Protection/ACE. It will also vastly improve the infrastructure efficiency needed to
interoperate with Customs and Border Protection/ACE and lower long-term maintenance
costs.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA;
FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA;
CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act. Exchange
Network Program funding has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY 2002 (Public
Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY 2005 (Public Law
108-447) and FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law
110-161), and FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
349
-------
Small Business Ombudsman
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,623.3
$2,623.3
9.0
FY2010
Enacted
$3,028.0
$3,028.0
10.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$3,040.0
$3,040.0
10.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$12.0
$12.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman (ASBO), a component of the Office of Small
Business Programs, serves as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) leading advocate
for small business regulatory issues. The ASBO reaches out to the small business community by
partnering with state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs) nationwide
and hundreds of small business trade associations. These partnerships provide the information
and perspective EPA needs to help small businesses achieve their environmental goals. This is a
comprehensive program that provides networks, resources, tools, and forums for education and
advocacy on behalf of small businesses.53
The core ASBO functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating
and supporting the program's hotline and homepage, participating in EPA program and Regional
offices' small business related meetings, and supporting internal and external small business
activities. The ASBO helps small businesses learn about new EPA actions and developments,
and helps EPA learn about the concerns and needs of small businesses. The ASBO partners with
state SBEAPs in order to reach an ever increasing number of small businesses, and to assist them
with updated and new approaches for improving their environmental performance. The ASBO
provides technical assistance in the form of workshops, conferences, hotlines, and training
forums designed to help small businesses become better environmental performers and helps our
partners provide the assistance that small businesses need.
Small businesses are a major source of job creation in the U.S. economy, and play a crucial role
in green workforce development, and help to train, prepare, and employ workers for the green
economy. Moreover, small businesses also represent a large number of the small manufacturers
who will, and are already, playing a crucial role in improving the environmental performance of
U.S. manufacturing. Therefore, resources will also support green workforce development, and
sustainable manufacturing efforts. These efforts identify and support efforts to develop and
deploy strategies for a greener and more sustainable workforce and manufacturing sector,
respectively. The initiatives will develop analytical tools, and train EPA and other stakeholders
in using these tools to promote environmental improvements. The efforts will also work
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sbo
350
-------
collaboratively with EPA programs/regions and external stakeholders to promote equity in
sustainable economic development associated with a greener workforce and a greener small
manufacturing sector.
The Agency's sustainable communities program will work to help small business effectively
compete in retail markets as neighborhoods receive public infrastructure investments. Small
businesses are critical to compact, walkable communities. In addition, the Agency will work to
overcome targeted market and code barriers to small businesses who are seeking to employ
effective green building practices. Small businesses include designers, remodelers, product
manufacturers, and specialty retailers. They are hampered by numerous market barriers,
including inconsistent standards, codes and code enforcement; lack of adequate building
performance data in real estate transactions and financing; and insufficient incentives to provide
or employ green building products and services.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman program will:
• Support and promote EPA's Small Business Strategy by encouraging small businesses,
states, and trade associations to comment on EPA's proposed regulatory actions, as well
as providing updates on the Agency's rulemaking activities in the quarterly Smallbiz@
EPA electronic bulletin.
• Serve as the Agency's point of contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act by
coordinating efforts with the Agency's program offices to further reduce the information
collection burden for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
• Participate with the Small Business Administration and other Federal agencies in
Business.gov. Business.gov is an official site of the U.S. Government that helps small
businesses understand their legal requirements, and locate government services
supporting the nation's small business community. This work helps to improve services
and reduces the burden on small businesses by guiding them through government rules
and regulations. EPA also will support and promote a state-led multi-media small
business initiative and coordinate efforts within the Agency.
• Strengthen and support partnerships with state Small Business Environmental Assistance
Programs (SBEAP) and trade associations, and recognize state SBEAPs, small
businesses, and trade associations that have directly impacted the improved
environmental performance of small businesses. Develop a compendium of small
business environmental assistance success stories that demonstrate what really works.
• Building on the current EPA efforts in Lean Manufacturing and the Environment, help
develop and coordinate EPA policies and strategies related to sustainable manufacturing,
while working with EPA's program and regional partners, as well as partners in the
Departments of Commerce and Energy on a multi-agency initiative to demonstrate
successes in sustainable production. Work with partners in EPA's programs and regions
351
-------
to lead and coordinate Agency policies and strategies on green workforce development.
Provide technical assistance and coordination to other Federal and State departments and
agencies - as well as other external organizations - to promote green workforce
development in key sectors that are critical to meeting EPA's goals.
Under this program, resources of $1.74 million and 5.0 FTE, support the Office of Small
Business Programs. The remaining $1.30 million and 5.0 FTE in this program support the Office
of Policy and Economics and Innovation's activities related to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 5.2: Improve environmental performance
through pollution prevention and other stewardship practices. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$17.0) This reflects recalculation for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$3.0) This reflects an increase to grants.
Statutory Authority:
CAAA, section 507.
352
-------
Small Minority Business Assistance
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,319.6
$2,319.6
9.1
FY2010
Enacted
$2,350.0
$2,350.0
9.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,358.0
$2,358.0
9.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$8.0
$8.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Small Minority Business program encompasses the Agency's Office of Small Business
Programs' (OSBP) Direct Procurement, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), and Minority
Academic Institutions (MAI) programs. This program provides technical assistance to small
businesses and headquarters and Regional employees, to ensure that small, disadvantaged,
women-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), service-disabled veteran-
owned small businesses (SDVOSBs), and MAIs receive a fair share of EPA's procurement
dollars and grants, where applicable. This program enhances the ability of these businesses to
participate in the protection of human health and the environment. The functions involve
accountability for evaluating and monitoring contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements
entered into, and on behalf of, EPA's headquarters and Regional offices. This will ensure that the
Agency's contract and procurement practices comply with Federal laws and regulations
regarding the utilization of small and disadvantaged businesses, direct procurement acquisitions,
indirect procurement assistance, and further the policies and mandates of Executive Orders
associated with the MAI program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, under the Agency's OSBP Direct Procurement program, small and disadvantaged
business procurement experts will provide assistance to headquarters and Regional program
office personnel and small business owners to ensure that small disadvantaged businesses
(SDBs), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), HUBZone firms, and SDVOSBs receive a
fair share of EPA's procurement dollars. EPA negotiates a number of national goals with the
Small Business Administration (SBA) every two years, which are targeted at increasing
opportunities for the above mentioned categories of small businesses. (In FY 2011, the funding
for the Small Minority Business Assistance Program is $2.36 million and 9.8 FTE).
353
-------
In FY 2011, EPA's contract reviews for an increasing number of Agency contracts will eliminate
unnecessary contract bundling to help ensure opportunities for America's small business
community. Contract bundling requires certain conditions to obtain contracts that small
businesses cannot provide because of their size. Strong emphasis will be placed on
implementing Section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, authorizing
contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs for certain Federal contracts in
industries in which the SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially
underrepresented in Federal procurement. The Agency will emphasize contracting with
SDVOSBs, as mandated by Executive Order #13360, which requires increased Federal
contracting opportunities for this group of entrepreneurs.
Under its DBE Program, EPA has a statutory goal often percent utilization of Minority Business
Enterprises/Worn en-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory eight percent goal for all other programs. The Small
Minority Business Assistance program encourages the Agency and its financial assistance
recipients to meet these indirect procurement goals. These efforts will enhance the ability of
America's small and disadvantaged businesses to help the Agency protect human health and the
environment while creating more jobs. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand
v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), EPA will continue implementation of the Agency's rule for the
participation of DBEs in procurements funded through EPA's assistance agreements.
Under its MAI program, the Agency develops strategies, collects data, provides technical
assistance, and produces reports on its efforts to meet the initiatives of Executive Order 13216;
Increasing Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs;
Executive Order 13230, President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans; Executive Order 13256, President's Board of Advisors on Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); and Executive Order 13270, Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$14.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$8.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$2.0) This reflects a minor increase to contract resources.
Statutory Authority:
Small Business Act, sections 8 and 15, as amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432, 12138,
13256, 13270, 13230, and 13216; P.L. 106-50; CAA.
354
-------
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,152.1
$12,152.1
50.9
FY2010
Enacted
$13,303.0
$13,303.0
57.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,529.0
$13,529.0
57.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$226.0
$226.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA works with state, local, and Tribal partners to help protect the public and the environment
from catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical handling facilities.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA regulations require that facilities handling more than a
threshold quantity of certain extremely hazardous substances must implement a Risk
Management program and submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to EPA. The RMP also must
be sent to the state and local planning entities, as well as the Chemical Safety Board, and be
made available to the public. The RMP describes the hazards of the chemicals used by the
facility, the potential consequences of worst case and other accidental release scenarios, a five
year accident history, the chemical accident prevention program in place at the site, and the
emergency response program used by the site to minimize the impacts on the public and
environment should a chemical release occur. Facilities are required to update their RMP at least
once every five years and sooner if changes are made at the facility.
Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)54, the Agency
works with state, local, and Tribal partners to help them develop and implement emergency plans
through technical assistance grants, technical support, outreach, and training, and also works
with industry partners to produce tools and guidance used by industry, government, and local
communities to control hazardous materials. EPA works with communities to provide chemical
risk information about local facilities, as well as helping them understand how the chemical risks
may affect their citizens. Additionally, EPA supports continuing development of emergency
planning and response tools such as the Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations
(CAMEO) software suite. With this information and these tools, communities are better
prepared to reduce and mitigate releases that may occur.
EPA also assists the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as other Federal agencies,
state, Tribal, and local partners by providing updated copies of the RMP database, analytical
support, and ongoing technical support for integration of RMP and EPCRA tools and
information. In addition, EPA conducts analyses of RMP data to identify regulated facilities,
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/index.htm
355
-------
chemical accident trends, and industrial sectors that may be more accident-prone, and to gain
knowledge on the effectiveness of risk management measures.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue its efforts to help state, Tribal, and local partners
implement their emergency plans. EPA will continue to refine RMP database analyses, make the
data more easily available to appropriate government agencies, and improve data utility for
security and emergency prevention, preparedness, and response efforts. EPA also will use
information generated by the RMPs with other right-to-know data to conduct initiatives and
activities aimed at risk reduction in high-risk facilities, priority industry sectors, and/or specific
geographic areas.
The Agency also will continue to further improve the Risk Management program by focusing on
high-risk facilities. This plan included development of criteria to identify high-risk facilities In
FY 2011, EPA activities in support of these efforts include the following:
• EPA and other implementing agencies will continue to perform their inspection
obligations of at least 400 on-site facility inspections, including 80 high-risk facilities,
such as petroleum refineries and larger chemical manufacturing sites.
• EPA will continue to provide training for Federal, state, local, and Tribal implementing
agency inspectors under its RMP and EPCRA inspector training curriculum and provide
additional opportunities for qualified inspectors to obtain training in advanced inspection
topics.
• Using the results of the FY 2008 survey of the nation's Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs), EPA will continue to develop guidance materials in order to meet
the identified needs of the LEPCs, provide technical assistance, and work with State
Emergency Response Commissions (SERCS) and the National Association of State Title
III Program Officials (NASTTPO) to provide support for the LEPCs.
• EPA will continue to support CAMEO software which assists first responders by
providing access to critical information about toxicity, behavior, and movement of
chemicals.
• EPA will improve implementation of the Risk Management program. Activities include:
o Strengthening controls to identify facilities that did not file RMPs;
o Providing the RMP required training courses and industry-specific training, when
warranted, to ensure that program inspectors are adequately trained; and
o Exploring strategies for providing additional resources to those Regional offices
with high facility-to-full time equivalent (FTE) ratios to ensure that high-risk
facilities are inspected expeditiously.
356
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Conduct 400 risk
management plan
audits and inspections.
FY 2009
Target
400
FY 2009
Actual
654
FY 2010
Target
400
FY2011
Target
400
Units
Audits
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$242.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$30.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$14.0) This increase reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications
resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to
the Information Security program.
Statutory Authority:
EPCRA; SARA of 1986; Section 112(r), Accidental Release Provisions of the CAA of 1990;
Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act.
357
-------
TRI / Right to Know
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$15,409.5
$15,409.5
37.4
FY2010
Enacted
$14,933.0
$14,933.0
43.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$16,494.0
$16,494.0
51.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,561.0
$1,561.0
8.2
Program Project Description:
The Toxics Release Inventory55 (TRI) program provides the public with information on releases,
and other waste management activities, of toxic chemicals from a broad segment of industrial
facilities. TRI is the Agency's only multi-media, integrated provider of such information to the
public. The program collects data on over 600 chemicals, provides quality assurance and stores
that data, and then makes it available to the public annually. Due to the scope and timeliness of
the data, TRI is the premier source of information for community right-to-know groups, and it
fulfills the Agency's statutory responsibilities under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
(PPA). The data also is used by the financial community to monitor corporate environmental
stewardship and by other EPA programs to support data quality and enforcement activities.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The regulatory foundation for the TRI program ensures that communities have access to timely
and meaningful information on toxic chemical releases in their neighborhoods. To strengthen
this foundation, the program will take steps in FY 2011 to clarify the TRI reporting requirements
for specific industries, as needed (e.g., wood preserving and metal mining facilities). The
program also will take steps to add selected chemicals (e.g., chemicals identified as carcinogens
by the National Toxicology Program) to the list of toxic chemicals that are tracked by TRI. In
addition, the program will consider whether to regulate additional toxic chemicals, industry
sectors, and individual facilities of concern.
TRI will continue working closely with the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program to
evaluate potential data quality issues concerning facility submissions and to support compliance
assistance and enforcement efforts. Strong coordination between the programs and enforcement,
tracking and reporting will be an increasingly important part of TRI's work at the regional level.
TRI will continue promoting the use of electronic reporting among the reporting facilities,
because it helps improve the quality of the TRI data submitted to EPA, reduces burden to
facilities over time and makes it possible for TRI to process, analyze and release the data to the
' For more information on the Toxics Release Inventory, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
358
-------
public more quickly. Over the past several years, the TRI program developed TRI-MEweb, an
Internet-based version of its TRI Made Easy (TRI-ME) software. TRI-MEweb includes
enhanced data quality checks and time-saving capabilities (e.g., pre-population of certain data
using data reported by the facility in the previous year). Because TRI-MEweb is now readily
available, TRI discontinued the TRI-ME compact disc version in FY 2010.
The TRI program will continue working with the Environmental Information Exchange Network
to promote the efficient collection and exchange of TRI data using EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX). In addition, TRI will continue encouraging states to participate in the TRI State Data
Exchange, and encouraging facilities located in participating states to utilize the State Data
Exchange. Where it is available, the State Data Exchange allows facilities to submit their
Federal and state TRI reports simultaneously, rather than separately, which significantly reduces
their reporting effort.
By July 1st each year, reporting facilities are required to submit their reports for the previous
calendar year. In FY 2011, the TRI program will continue providing public access to that data as
quickly as possible, through downloadable data files and/or data publishing services. TRI will
work to enhance the analytical capabilities available to data users through TRI Explorer,
Envirofacts and other online tools, and to provide more hazard-based information (e.g., by
providing Toxic Equivalents data for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds), all of which are
intended to help TRI users understand the nature of the hazards posed by the various materials
reported.
The TRI program will continue working with outside organizations, such as the Environmental
Council of the States, to foster stakeholder discussions and collaboration on the analysis, use and
application of TRI data (e.g., through the ChemicalRight2Know.org Web site and the TRI
National Training Conference). At the same time, TRI will work with others to promote
corporate accountability and environmental stewardship. The program will continue providing
access to TRI data at the corporate level (i.e., the forms and instructions for facilities will include
additional explanation to highlight corporate level data collection) and from individual facilities.
TRI also will continue to highlight TRI data on pollution prevention and best management
practices.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$409.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (+$1,148.07+8.2 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources, including shifting 8.2
FTE and associated payroll, from the IT/Data Management program to the TRI program
to reflect current efforts being performed for TRI. These efforts include the assessment of
359
-------
chemicals to be listed in the inventory and the development of community-focused tools
to assist in the evaluation of toxics release data.
• (-$50.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program, which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. Various programs have
contributed to this database in the past.
• (-$38.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for general expenses, contracts, grants, and
IT and communications.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; SARA; EPCRA; CAA; CWA; SOW A; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA;
FFDCA; ERD; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA; Pollution Prevention Act
and DAA
360
-------
Tribal - Capacity Building
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,174.7
$13,174.7
83.8
FY2010
Enacted
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
73.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,005.0
$15,005.0
88.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,925.0
$2,925.0
15.0
Program Project Description:
Under Federal environmental statutes, EPA has responsibility for protecting human health and
the environment in Indian country. EPA has worked to establish the internal infrastructure and
organize its activities in order to meet this responsibility.
Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with tribes on a government-to-
government basis in recognition of the Federal government's trust responsibility to federally-
recognized tribes. EPA's American Indian Environmental program leads the Agencywide effort
to ensure environmental protection in Indian country. See http://www.epa.gov/indian/ and
http://www.epa.gov/indian/policyintitvs.htm for more information.
EPA's strategy for this program has three major components:
• Work with tribes to create an environmental presence for each federally-recognized tribe
(discussed under the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) in the STAG
appropriation);
• Provide the data and information needed by Tribal governments and EPA to meet Tribal
environmental priorities. At the same time, ensure EPA has the ability to view and
analyze the conditions on Indian lands and the effects of EPA and Tribal actions and
programs on the environmental conditions; and
• In FY 2011 the Agency is requesting a new multi-media grant program which will
provide the opportunity for implementation of Tribal environmental programs by tribes.
This program would develop guidance for the grants as well as perform administrative
and oversight roles for the program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA requests funds for a new multi-media grant program for Tribal implementation.
These grants will be tailored to address an individual tribe's most serious environmental needs
through the implementation of Federal environmental programs. Additional FTE and resources
361
-------
are requested for this program to support the design and effective implementation and oversight
of this important new grant program. It is essential that EPA's Tribal capacity grant program
and this new multi-media implementation grant program be effectively harmonized so that they
build upon each other to enhance environmental protection in Indian country and Alaska Native
Villages.
The ability to comprehensively and accurately examine conditions and make assessments
provides a blueprint for planning future activities and helps maximize limited resources.
Priorities are implemented through the development of Tribal/EPA Environmental Agreements
(TEAs) or similar Tribal environmental plans that address and support priority environmental
multi-media concerns in Indian country.
Complementary to the efforts of providing an environmental presence through the Tribal GAP
and the new Multi-Media Tribal Implementation program, EPA's enhanced information
technology infrastructure, which includes the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA),
extracts records from databases on the basis of Tribal reservation boundaries and assigns those
records to Tribal governments. This process helps to provide Agency and Tribal managers with
a more complete picture of conditions and facilities on Tribal lands. In FY 2011, the ongoing
integration and merger of TPEA with the EPA Enterprise Architecture will continue to lead to a
more efficient information technology infrastructure.
To expand EPA's effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country, the program
provides support to EPA's National Tribal Operations Committee, and Agencywide meetings,
including the Indian Program Policy Council. EPA conducts program evaluations which aid in
improving delivery of financial services to tribes and is committed to measures development
work across the Agency that strengthens the accuracy and relevancy of Tribal measure outcomes.
Access to information is a powerful tool in assisting local Tribal priority setting and decision
making and is a major emphasis for EPA's Tribal capacity programs. In FY 2007, EPA
launched the American Indian Tribal Portal. The purpose of the portal is to help American
Indian communities and supporters locate Tribal related information within EPA and other
government agencies. The portal is operated and maintained by EPA's American Indian
Environmental program and work to support this effort will continue in FY 2011. See
http://www.epa.gov/Tribalportal/ for more information.
TPEA, part of the Agency's Envirofacts system, is a multi-agency, multi-media database that is
designed to support Tribal programs for all tribes, as well as the EPA National Program
Managers. TPEA, accessible through the Tribal portal, links Tribal environmental information
from EPA with Tribal data systems from other agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and the Indian Health Service. EPA continues to enhance this database to promote
management of Tribal environmental programs and to show results of environmental
improvements in Indian country. TPEA organizes environmental data on a Tribal basis, bringing
together data from different agencies, programs and tribes in a format providing a clear, up-to-
date picture of environmental conditions in Indian country. TPEA is entirely Internet-based and
is designed to track the following three classes of information:
362
-------
• Environmental information from national monitoring and facility management databases;
• EPA programmatic information, generally utilizing customized databases where data are
input by Regional program offices; and
• Individual sets of environmental data to be submitted by tribes.
EPA's Indian Policy affirms the principle that the Agency has a government-to-government
relationship with tribes and that "EPA recognizes tribes as the primary parties for setting
standards, making environmental policy decisions and managing programs for reservations,
consistent with agency standards and regulations." To that end, EPA "encourage[s] and assist[s]
tribes in assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities," primarily through the
"treatment in a manner similar to a state" (TAS) processes available under several environmental
statutes. EPA continues to encourage Tribal capacity development to implement Federal
environmental programs, including the use of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreement (DITCA) authority.
EPA instituted an annual review of the national GAP grant program to ensure effective
management of grant resources. This effort includes review of Regional GAP programs and
individual GAP grant files. Regional reviews of the GAP program by the Agency will continue
in FY 2011. All GAP grantees must meet the requirement, begun in FY 2007, to submit a
standardized work plan which includes milestones and deliverables, and links to the Agency's
strategic plan. Standardized workplans lead to a better characterization of environmental and
public health benefits of the capacity building activities in a consistent manner. EPA has
developed and implemented the GAP Online database as part of TPEA. GAP Online is a web-
based tool for workplan development and reporting. In addition, EPA will continue developing a
framework to assist recipients in clearly identifying key procedures and milestones leading to
building capacity for specific programs.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to support standardization and a crosswalk of Tribal identifier
codes to integrate and consistently report Tribal information across Federal agencies. One
example of this effort has been the adoption by EPA of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Tribal
identifier code system as an agency standard for all the EPA databases. TPEA will compile and
display the universe of Tribal EPA regulated facilities, assigning each one to a specific Tribal
entity, through the use of an Indian country flag in the EPA Facility Registry System. This type
of cross-platform data analysis is not possible without EPA's TPEA initiative.
These data systems will enable EPA to measure environmental quality in Tribal lands in two
important areas: ambient quality of air and water, and emissions of pollutants into the
environment. Both measures (ambient quality and emissions) are important in the development
of outcome-based performance measures for EPA Tribal programs. Efforts to link TPEA
directly to the Sanitation Deficiency System Database (SDS) of the Indian Health Service (IHS)
will continue.
363
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's efforts to Improve Human Health and the Environment
in Indian country. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program
Project.
Information in the IHS SDS system is reported in the Agency's Strategic Plan. Work under this
program supports multiple strategic objectives.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$233.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$2,698.07 +15.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for implementation of the new multi-
media grant program which includes associated payroll of $1,894.0 for 15.0 FTE. These
funds support new positions to oversee, provide guidance, and ensure accountability to
the new grant program. Most (twelve) of the FTE are regional due to the place-based
nature of this new program.
• (-$6.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce the
Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
364
-------
Program Area: International Programs
365
-------
US Mexico Border
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,621.8
$5,621.8
20.7
FY2010
Enacted
$4,969.0
$4,969.0
21.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$4,979.0
$4,979.0
21.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$10.0
$10.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The 2,000 mile border between the U.S. and Mexico is one of the most complex and dynamic
regions in the world. This region accounts for three of the ten poorest counties in the U.S., with
an unemployment rate 250-300 percent higher than the rest of the United States. In addition, 432
thousand of the 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias56 which are unincorporated
communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 program continues to be a successful joint effort between the U.S.
and Mexican governments. The two governments work with the 10 Border States (4 U.S./6
Mexican) and with local communities to improve the region's environmental health. The Border
2012 framework agreement is intended to protect the environment and public health along the
U.S.-Mexico Border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The
results achieved to date include: (1) constructed adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for
over 7 million border residents; (2) implemented the Transporte Limpio, modeled after EPA's
SmartWay. This program increases fuel efficiency and reduces pollutant and greenhouse gas
emissions from diesel trucks operating along the border; (3) developed a Scrap Tire Integrated
Management Initiative to eliminate scrap tire piles and ensure that newly generated scrap tires
are managed in an environmentally sound manner; (4) closed 20 of 27 major dumps on the
Torres Martinez reservation (Torres Martinez Solid Waste Collaborative); (5) cleaned
Matamoros, Reynosa, Piedras Negras, and San Luis Rio Colorado tire piles and continue the
cleanup at the Juarez site. Together, all cleanups to date have eliminated over 4 million scrap
tires along the border; (6) published Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data for the U.S. border
region; and (7) signed a new U.S.-Mexico Joint Emergency and Contingency Plan.
Note that Border water and wastewater infrastructure programs are described in the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation, Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Program Narrative.
' http://www.borderhealth.org/border region.php
366
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 Program continue to include: (1) increasing access to
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure; (2) building greenhouse gas (GHG) information
capacity and expanding voluntary programs to achieve GHG reduction; (3) developing
institutional capacity to manage electronic waste and used oil; (4) piloting projects that reduce
exposure to obsolete agricultural pesticides; (5) conducting binational emergency preparedness
training and exercises at sister cities; and (6) utilizing the Toxics Release Inventory and Pollutant
Release and Transfer Register tools to collect and report on industry pollutant releases, and to
better assist border industry to go above and beyond compliance.
The Border 2012 Program continues to address water and sanitation needs along the border
through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), which has been instrumental in
improving the quality of life of communities along the border. More than 7 million people
benefit today from improved sanitation and access to drinking water. In addition, through the
U.S. Tribal Border infrastructure program, over 8,100 homes have been provided with safe
drinking water or basic sanitation. For example, in 2008, a new sanitary facility was completed
in the indigenous communities of San Jose de la Zorra and San Antonio Necua to improve access
to clean water and environmentally friendly sanitary facilities.
Continued collaboration between EPA and the Mexican Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT)
has resulted in Mexico launching the Transporte Limpio, modeled after EPA's SmartWay. Work
under this program will continue with a goal to increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions from diesel trucks operating along the border. In addition, California,
Baja California, Arizona, Sonora, and New Mexico, completed greenhouse gas emissions
(GHGs) inventories following the International Panel on Climate Change protocol. These
inventories provide information on sources and volumes of emissions and enable identification
of strategies for reducing emissions. In FY 2011, the program will work towards building on
border greenhouse gas (GHG) information capacity using comparable methodologies and expand
voluntary cost-effective programs for reduction of GHG emissions in the border area. GHG
emissions will be estimated in at least eight border states, identifying the sources and locations
from which reductions may be achieved.
Abandoned scrap tires continue to present environmental and public health hazards from
potential fires and their resulting air pollution and from disease-carrying pests. Together, all
cleanups to date have eliminated over 4 million scrap tires along the border. Previously, EPA
and SEMARNAT developed the Scrap Tire Integrated Management Initiative to eliminate scrap
tire piles and ensure that newly generated scrap tires are managed in an environmentally sound
manner. In 2008, the Governors from the ten Border States signed a letter of understanding to
formally join and support this initiative. In FY 2011, the program will continue the clean-up of
the Ciudad Juarez tire pile, in addition to reducing waste generation through green purchasing,
solid waste management, and source reduction practices.
The Border Program successfully completed remediation of the Metales y Derivados as the first
completed cleanup under Mexico's new cleanup law and under Border 2012's Goal 3, Sub-
Objective 4A. Metales y Derivados was a lead smelting facility that began operations in the late
367
-------
1980s, was cited by Mexico's Attorney General for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA) for
environmental non-compliance, and was abandoned by its U.S. owner in 1994. In FY 2011,
EPA will continue applying the binational framework on clean-up/remediation and restoration of
sites contaminated with hazardous waste at the border of California and Baja California.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Goal 4 objective to sustain, clean up, and restore
communities and the ecological systems that support them. There are currently no performance
measures for this program under this appropriation. There are performance measures under the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants appropriation.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$7.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.0) This reflects a decrease to IT and telecommunications resources.
• ($+4.0) This increase supports administrative costs for the Border Program.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; PPA; FIFRA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
368
-------
International Sources of Pollution
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks; Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,836.1
$6,836.1
38.3
FY2010
Enacted
$8,628.0
$8,628.0
44.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$8,759.0
$8,759.0
44.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$131.0
$131.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA has improved the quality of life for all Americans by safeguarding their air, water, and land
as well as helping to protect their health. However, addressing issues at home is only part of the
Agency's environmental effort. To achieve our domestic environmental objectives, it is
important to address foreign sources of pollution that impact the United States, including
emissions, such as mercury, toxics, as well as greenhouse gases (GHGs). As we better
understand the interdependences of global ecosystems and the transport of pollutants from its
sources, it becomes clear that the actions of other countries affect the U.S. environment. EPA
also supports efforts to address global level environmental challenges such as climate change.
Addressing these challenges requires strong collaboration between EPA and its international
partners.
An important way to improve collaboration and address foreign sources of pollution that impact
the U.S. and the global environment is through international capacity building and improved
environmental governance. International capacity-building plays a key role in protecting human
health and the environment by providing technical cooperation to help countries reduce air
pollution, better manage air quality, waste and toxic chemicals, improve their environmental
governance and reduce the global use and emission of mercury.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Air Quality
Air quality in the United States is affected by other countries' emissions, such as criteria
pollutants (e.g., PM [inclusive of black carbon]), NOx, SOx, lead, ozone, carbon monoxide) and
air toxics (e.g. Hg, POPs) which can have a detrimental impact on human health and the
environment. EPA will continue to address air quality in priority areas through the "Breathe
Easy" program and address international climate change issues by fulfilling its international
responsibilities under existing efforts and provisions. The Agency will intensify efforts to
coordinate, negotiate, implement, and participate in international agreements relating to the
369
-------
environment and climate change. EPA will do this at the policy level via participation and
representation of the US in international organizations and at international fora. EPA
engagements will cover core elements of ongoing negotiations, and associated multilateral and
bilateral dialogue on implementation via mitigation, adaptation, financing and trade, and
technology cooperation. EPA will continue to improve international monitoring, reporting, and
verification capabilities. EPA also will address growing interest in assessing and reducing
climate impacts of short-term air pollutants including black carbon, stratospheric ozone and
methane, with a particular focus on the Arctic and on densely populated regions in developing
countries where glacier-fed fresh water supplies are threatened by pollution-driven climate
change.
Additionally, EPA will strengthen and expand international capacity building efforts for GHG
avoidance and reduction, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on work with developing
countries and emerging economies. EPA will partner with developed and developing countries,
to share lessons learned on the effective management of GHG emissions reductions as well as to
share tools and methodologies to promote ways to adapt to climate change. EPA also will
promote co-benefit strategies with partner countries that reduce GHG emissions and black
carbon, while improving local air quality.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue its involvement in the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles
(PCFV) program. The global car fleet is predicted to triple by 2050 - over 80 percent of that in
the developing world.57 The primary goal of this global partnership is to reduce vehicular air
pollution in developing countries and transitioning countries by eliminating lead in gasoline,
phasing down sulphur in diesel and gasoline fuels, and facilitating the introduction of cleaner and
more efficient vehicles. Additionally, EPA will continue its efforts to reduce transboundary
stationary-source pollution by focusing on practical measures to achieve reductions in PM, NOx
and other emissions, particularly from power plants. For example, EPA will work with China to
reduce dioxin and furans from cement kilns and assess and reduce emissions of PM and mercury
from coal combustion sources.
Mercury
As part of its effort to reduce global sources of persistent bioaccumulative toxics, EPA continues
to give priority to reducing the global use and emission of mercury. As an illustration of this
commitment, EPA joined the USG and international community at the February 2009 United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing Council in Nairobi, in supporting a major
decision to further international action, consisting of the elaboration of a legally binding
instrument on mercury which could include both binding and voluntary approaches, to reduce the
health and environmental risks associated with mercury.58
In FY 2011, EPA will work with the UNEP and other partners to ensure the availability and
reliability of data, analyses, and other technical information necessary to inform the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) process. EPA also will continue to address
priority issues such as reducing the supply of commodity mercury to the global market,
enhancing the capacity for mercury storage, reducing mercury use in products and processes and
57IEA 2008 Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 - Scenarios and strategies to 2050, International Energy Agency, Paris.
58 Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Program February 2009
370
-------
raising awareness of mercury-free alternatives. EPA will work with partners to address various
aspects of the reduction or elimination of the use of mercury from vinyl chloride monomer
industry and other industrial sectors in China; from gold shops and gold mining in Africa, Latin
America and Asia; and from the chlor-alkali industry in key countries.
Water Quality
For FY 2011, EPA will promote clean water and drinking water programs in Africa, China, Latin
America, and other key countries and regions focusing on improving the quality of water sources
and managing other environmental risks using comprehensive and sustainable approaches.
Through an exchange of technical expertise and capacity building efforts, EPA will work with
partners to develop programs that promote cost-effective and sustainable drinking water and
wastewater approaches with key countries and share experiences and lessons learned globally.
Land Pollution
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to provide technical cooperation, expertise, and assistance to help
communities and countries preserve and restore the land and to mitigate sources of land
pollution. Under the Stockholm Convention59, EPA works with many countries to reduce
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides,
dioxins, and furans. To demonstrate the U.S. commitment to international action on these
chemicals, EPA is working to mitigate potential risk from POPs reaching the U.S. by long range
transport by: 1) reduction/elimination of sources of POPs in countries (e.g., Russia, China, India,
and Central America.) of origin, focusing on PCB-containing equipment, obsolete and prohibited
pesticides stockpiles, and dioxins and furans emissions from combustion sources; 2) better inter-
and intra-country coordination on POPs implementation activities through improved access to
POPs technical, regulatory and program information from all sources, including the Internet; and
3) capacity building in developing countries and with non-governmental organizations to address
obsolete stocks and uses of persistent organic pollutants including certain pesticides and PCBs,
through information sharing, training, and other methods.
In FY 2011, EPA will help strengthen implementation of global programs to address electronic
waste (e-waste) and sound reuse and recycling of electronic equipment. The Agency will partner
with other nations to assess and map flows of global movement of electronic waste from the US
and provide "eWaste best practices" through education and demonstration projects in developing
countries. These efforts will reduce risks from exposure to toxic substances contained in e-waste
such as lead, mercury, cadmium, perfluorinated chemicals, hexavalent chromium, and barium
through awareness raising, capacity building on inspections in ports and detecting cases of
noncompliance and enabling improved inter-ministerial and inter-governmental information
sharing and collaboration to address e-waste issues.
59 For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http: //www.pops.int.
371
-------
Improved environmental governance provides a firm foundation for most of EPA's programs. In
FY 2011, EPA will continue to provide training and technical assistance to improve
environmental governance in key countries and regions, including Africa, Russia, India and the
Middle East. This work will include development of regional networks for environmental
governance, training on environmental enforcement, inspections, investigations, and pilot
demonstration projects.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
completing phase out
of leaded gasoline.
(incremental)
FY 2009
Target
4
FY 2009
Actual
2
FY 2010
Target
3
FY2011
Target
1
Units
Countries
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
introducing low sulfur
in fuels, (incremental)
FY 2009
Target
3
FY 2009
Actual
2
FY 2010
Target
9
FY2011
Target
2
Units
Countries
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$128.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.0) This reflects a decrease to IT and telecommunication resources.
• ($+4.0) This increase supports administrative costs for international programs.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SOW A; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; OAPCA;
MPRSA; CRCA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
372
-------
Trade and Governance
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,413.2
$5,413.2
16.4
FY2010
Enacted
$6,227.0
$6,227.0
16.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,202.0
$6,202.0
16.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($25.0)
($25.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
As our understanding of environmental issues has increased, so has our appreciation of the need
to partner with other countries on environmental goals. International cooperation is vital to
achieving our mission. Our shared goals for environmental protection can open doors between
the United States and foreign governments. Assisting other countries in their environmental
protection efforts can be an effective part of a larger U.S. strategy for promoting sustainable
development and advancing democratic ideals. EPA supports U.S. diplomatic, trade, and foreign
policy goals that extend far beyond our domestic agenda.
Good environmental governance abroad not only yields a cleaner environment, it helps ensure
that U.S. companies and communities compete on an equal footing in the international
marketplace. In particular, EPA works with U.S. trading partners to help them meet their
obligations under trade agreement to enforce their own environmental laws. Through leadership
in the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other international entities, EPA supports
environmental performance reviews of other countries. These reviews help facilitate the sharing
and continual improvement of good governance best practices (such as providing access to
information, collaborating with diverse stakeholders, and providing transparency in
environmental decision making).
EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities also sustain environmental
protection since the 1972 Trade Act mandated inter-agency consultation by the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) on trade policy issues. U.S. trade with the world has grown rapidly from
$34.4 billion in 1960 to $3.394 trillion in 2008 as stated by the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign
Trade Division.60 This increase underscores the importance of addressing the environmental
consequences associated with trade. EPA is a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG), interagency mechanisms that are organized
and coordinated by USTR to provide advice, guidance and clearance to the USTR in the
development of U.S. international trade and investment policy. EPA provides input to
comprehensive multilateral trade rounds [e.g., the ongoing Doha round of the World Trade
Organization (WTO)], bilateral free trade agreements, and other matters. In addition, USTR and
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/goods.pdf.
373
-------
EPA co-host the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), a
Congressionally-mandated advisory group that provides advice and information in connection
with the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy. EPA,
represented by the Administrator, is the lead U.S. agency to implement the North American
Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which involves trilateral efforts to assess
and reduce the environmental effects of the recent dramatic increases in trade among the three
North American nations.
NAAEC was founded on the notion that trade liberalization would increase trade but was likely
to have a negative impact on the environment in North America. The North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did in fact result in increased commerce, and U.S. trade with its
NAFTA partner countries has increased 547 percent since 1985 (in 1985 U.S. total trade with
Canada and Mexico was $149.0 billion; in 2008, that number grew to $964.4 billion).61
Booming trade after NAFTA's entry into force also has lead to increasing traffic congestion and
related environmental consequences, particularly air pollution.62 For example, the majority of
trade between Mexico and the U.S. is carried by heavy-duty diesel trucks, which are major
emitters of nitrogen oxide (NOx), paniculate matter (PM) and carbon dioxide. The increased
traffic entering the U.S. at key border crossings, such as the San Diego/Tijuana area, have
resulted in correspondingly higher NOx and PM emissions.63
To address trade-related environmental issues, EPA performs four major functions. First, by
contributing to the development, negotiation and implementation of environment-related
provisions in all new U.S. free trade agreements, EPA helps to ensure that U.S. trading partner
countries improve and enforce their domestic environmental laws. EPA also works with USTR
to promote environmental protection through liberalized trade in environmentally preferable
goods and services. A second major function involves helping to develop the U.S. Government's
(USG) environmental reviews of each new free trade agreement, as well as encouraging other
trade partners to assess the environmental implications of their own trade liberalization
commitments. EPA's third major function in this area involves helping to negotiate and
implement the environmental cooperation agreements that parallel each trade agreement, such as
the NAAEC. EPA, along with USG agencies and other collaborators, supports implementation
of agreements by assisting our trading partners to develop effective and efficient environmental
protection standards. A fourth major function is to provide technical and policy guidance so as
to avoid potential conflicts between trade commitments and our statutory obligations to
implement domestic environmental laws and policies.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2011, EPA will continue to provide input to U.S. engagement in multilateral trade
negotiations and initiation and/or conclusion of new bilateral or regional free trade agreements,
61 US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Annual 2008 Trade Highlights, www.census, go v/foreign-
trade/statistics/highlights/annual.htmL accessed August 17, 2009.
62 U.S. Transportation Research Board, The National Academies, "Critical Issues in Transportation," 2006.
63 Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, cause respiratory symptoms such as increased
cough, labored breathing, chest tightness and wheezing, and cause inflammatory responses in the airways and the lung. Longer-
term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause chronic respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function, and may cause or worsen
allergic respiratory diseases such as asthma.
374
-------
and trade and investment framework agreements. To facilitate a successful conclusion of the
Doha Round of negotiations under the WTO, EPA will continue to provide the USTR with
policy and technical guidance, as well as analytical data to inform environmental practices in key
trade partner countries. In addition to helping the USTR develop and negotiate the environmental
provisions of these agreements, EPA will contribute to the associated environmental reviews and
environmental cooperation agreements and advocate greater attention to key environmental
concerns (e.g., invasive species and air pollution) associated with the movement of traded goods.
EPA also will provide targeted capacity building support under the environmental cooperation
agreements developed parallel to U.S. free trade agreements such as those with Jordan, Chile,
Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Singapore, Peru and in the Central American, North American and the
Caribbean regions. Should the newly concluded agreements with Colombia, or South Korea
enter into force, EPA will seek to provide appropriate capacity building assistance to these
countries. The priorities for a majority of this cooperative work are established through a State
Department chaired and led inter-agency process in which EPA is a full member, with additional
input provided by the USTR-led inter-agency process. NAAEC priorities are set by the CEC
member countries.
As the first environmental cooperation agreement under a trade agreement, the NAAEC paved
the way for many of our subsequent efforts under other FTAs and serves as a good example of
EPA's approach to trade related work. Within the NAAEC, EPA will continue to work with
Mexico and Canada through the CEC to ensure integration of environmental considerations into
trade policies in the midst of increased trade and economic development, and will focus
specifically on: (1) consistent with US domestic policy, developing aggressive GHG reduction
targets and a range of policy tools, strongly emphasizing co-benefits of air pollution reductions
and climate change mitigation among the three Parties; (2) promoting the greening of the North
American economies by supporting sustainable use of materials through application of the "3
R's" (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle); sustainable use of energy and new energy resources and
developing sustainable communities through EPA's Smart Growth program; and (3)
strengthening institutions and practices that support healthy communities and ecosystems,
including promoting the sound management of chemicals, increasing the capacity for pollution
prevention, strengthening environmental enforcement, and preventing the adverse effects of
pollution on human and ecosystem health.
EPA will continue to strengthen cooperation and promote public participation in the
development and improvement of environmental laws, regulations, procedures, policies and
practices. EPA will support the CEC's efforts to strengthen capacity and improve compliance
with environmental laws while encouraging voluntary measures on the part of industry. EPA
also will continue to work with the CEC to promote quality assurance mechanisms, transparency,
and cost effectiveness. EPA also will support CEC efforts as it works with the Parties to the
NAAEC to: 1) strengthen enforcement of environmental laws; 2) facilitate the movement of
legal materials across borders by improving the exchange of information, training customs and
other law enforcement officials; and 3) build the capacity of legal and judicial systems, with an
emphasis on Mexico.
375
-------
The CEC will focus on minimizing the risks of human and environmental exposure to chemicals
in use, or previously used in and traded as products (e.g., mercury, lindane); categories of
chemicals, including those produced as unintentional by-products from disposal of traded
products (e.g., dioxins and furans); and industry sectors and technologies common to the three
countries (e.g., automotive, electronics). In general terms, the CEC's sound management of
chemicals initiative focuses on chemicals in trade, their products, and long-range transport of
chemicals across borders. The CEC facilitates discussion, coordination and mutual assistance
among the three Parties.
Under EPA guidance, the CEC will continue its efforts on the Sound Management of Chemicals
program, which promotes regional cooperation and capacity building for pollution prevention,
source reduction, and pollution control for chemicals of common concern. North American
Regional Action Plans were developed and are being implemented for mercury, lindane, and
dioxin and furans. EPA also will support the CEC's efforts to publish report data on pollutant
releases and transfers from industrial activities in North America with an emphasis on increasing
the comparability of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) and building Mexico's
capacity to collect and report data that is comparable, verifiable and compatible across the three
countries in North America on continent-wide environmental topics, including a harmonized
classification system for industrial pollutant data.
EPA will support the CEC's efforts to catalyze cooperation among the Parties to the NAAEC on
North American Air Quality management through the development emissions inventories and
building air monitoring capacities that are comparable with the United States and Canada. In
addition, EPA will continue to address the environmental concerns associated with increased
trade. The Agency will work to decouple economic growth from negative environmental
impacts by: 1) promoting greater use of low carbon alternatives in North America; 2) promoting
more energy efficient economic growth in the region; and 3) enhancing cooperation among the
three countries to support clean energy projects and facilitate activities that will help North
America transition towards a low carbon economy.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Goal 4 objective to sustain, clean up and restore
communities and the ecological systems that support them, and also indirectly supports all four
additional goals. There are currently no performance measures for this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$33.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$1.0) This reflects a decrease to IT and telecommunications resources.
• (+$9.0) This increase supports international cooperation efforts.
376
-------
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 13141 (Environmental Review of Trade Agreements); Executive Order 13277
(Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of
2002); WTO Agreements; NAFTA; NAAEC; PPA.
377
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
378
-------
Information Security
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,565.3
$1,013.2
$5,578.5
8.7
FY2010
Enacted
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$7,030.0
$728.0
$7,758.0
15.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,118.0
($57.0)
$1,061.0
-0.5
Program Project Description:
The Agency Information Security Program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability
and integrity of EPA's information assets. The protection strategy includes, but is not limited to,
enterprise policy, procedure and practice management; information security awareness, training
and education; risk-based Certification & Accreditation (C&A); Plans of Action & Milestone
(POA&M's) management to ensure remediation of weaknesses; defense-in-depth and breadth
technology and operational security management; incident response and handling; and Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective information security is a constantly moving target. Every year, Agency security
practitioners are challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts
to breach organizational protections. In FY 2011, EPA's continuous integrated efforts will allow
the Agency's Information Security Program to take a more pro-active role in dealing with these
threats.
EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets by continuing to improve
its Information Security Program. The Agency will continue to focus initially on asset definition
and management, compliance, incident management, knowledge and information management,
risk management, and technology management. Secondary activities in FY 2011 include, but are
not limited to, access management, organizational training and awareness, measurement and
analysis, and service continuity. These efforts will strengthen the Agency's ability to ensure
operational resiliency. The final result will be an information security program that can rely on
effective and efficient processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive events.
379
-------
Concurrently, EPA will continue its performance-based information security activities with a
particular emphasis on risk management, incident management and information security
architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth). These three areas are critical to the Agency's security
position. They are also key components of various Federal mandates, such as the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) information security initiatives, which will be implemented
throughout FY 2011, including Trusted Internet Connection (TIC), Domain Name Service
Security (DNSSec) and the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC). These mandates are
rapidly enhancing the Agency's security requirements for information policy, technology
standards and practices.
EPA will continue efforts to transition from Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in
accordance with the June 30, 2008 OMB M-05-22, Transition Planning for Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6). This effort is a Federal initiative designed to retain our nation's technical and
market leadership in the Internet sector and to expand and improve services for Americans. As
with many enterprise initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed
in order to make this capability secure. EPA will analyze and plan our long-term strategy for
implementing, monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2011.
Additionally, EPA will continue implementing the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12
(HSPD-12) requirements for logical access as identified in the Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and
Contractors. This Enterprise Identity and Access Management (IAM) project will be combined
with the Enterprise Single Sign-On (SSO) to enable the required enhanced authentication
mechanism without burdening EPA systems users.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
reportable systems that
are certified and
accredited.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$69.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (+$1,041.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources
for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program. In accordance with the Federal Information Security
Management Act, EPA is required to have the ability to provide pro-active, reactive and
support services associated with information security incident management.
• (+$8.0) This reflects an increase for general expenses, contracts, and IT and
telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority: FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
380
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$90,809.5
$3,852.1
$164.3
$36.3
$17,266.1
$112,128.3
484.6
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$98,060.0
$4,111.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$118,891.0
489.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$650.0
($274.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($367.0)
($177.0)
-13.8
Program Project Description:
In broad terms, IT/DM houses all of the critical IT infrastructure needed for: 1) rapid and
efficient communication; 2) exchange and storage of data, analysis and computations; and 3)
access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice infrastructure needed by agency staff, the
regulated community, and the public. These functions are integral to the implementation of
Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central
Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). Recent partnerships include
portals projects with the Research and Development and Air and Radiation offices to access
scientific and program data.
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive
purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access;
geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/IM) policy and
planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance
(IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/EVI infrastructure.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will work with EPA program offices on the Healthy Communities
priority, this program will focus on: 1) increasing the availability of plain language information
and tools on air toxics for at-risk communities, including information on environmental health
issues affecting schools and children; 2) providing Web 2.0 information collaboration tools such
as wikis and/or blogs in EPA's outreach and communications efforts to increase transparency,
coordination, and collaboration among states, local communities, schools and the general public
381
-------
as they share lessons learned, best practices, and an evolving understanding of the environment;
and 3) maintaining EPA's technology infrastructure to provide the capacity needed to support
use of information technologies in outreach programs.
In particular, work in the program will focus on developing discovery tools and data publishing
infrastructure for facilitating access to EPA data assets. This includes an automated capability to
discover, access and query data from programmatic databases. Work also will include the ability
to convert existing data into a number of different data formats, including open geospatial
standards, to enhance data integration and collaboration. Final products will be available in the
form of Web services and syndicated feeds to a variety of different users inside and outside EPA,
including publishing the data through the Exchange Network.
The program will work to develop collaborative tools and suites of key information in close
consultation with EPA's media programs. The program also will assist by developing a mobile
application to allow monitoring data collected in the field to be sent directly to EPA or the
appropriate location for publication on the Internet so that it can be made quickly available to all
who are interested. Working through its ongoing relationship with National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the program will continue to obtain and
utilize advice on ways diverse and underserved communities prefer to receive, and better
understand environmental information that will allow them to participate in keeping our
communities healthy.
The following summarize the major activity areas within this program:
• Information Access - FY 2011 activities in this area will continue making
environmental information accessible to all users. This includes: maintaining EPA's
libraries, access to Environmental Indicators; support for Toxics Release Inventory64
(TRI) data; a major role in E-Gov activities such as to improve Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) activities using electronic workflow management, and eRule - a Web-based
system to facilitate, and provide greater public access to, Federal rulemakings; and
development of analytical tools to help users understand the meaning of environmental
data. It includes facility data collected from numerous Federal programs, and tools to
help those who use information from a variety of sources to reconfigure that data so it
can be easily compared and analyzed.
Of particular emphasis in FY 2011, EPA's E-Gov participation and contributions
continue with the coordination, development and implementation of Geospatial One-
Stop. Key activities will ensure that access to critical data (e.g., geospatial information,
Federal regulations) is increased through the Geospatial One-Stop portal and the Portal,
providing opportunities for collaboration and intergovernmental partnerships, reducing
duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to important Federal
services for businesses.
Another FY 2011 focus area, the Integrated Portal, will continue with implementing
identity and access management solutions, integrating geospatial tools, and linking to the
64 For more information on Toxics Release Inventory data, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
382
-------
Central Data Exchange65 (CDX). The Integrated Portal is a business gateway for people
to access, exchange and integrate environmental and public health data at the local,
Regional and national level. In this manner, the Integrated Portal gives users the ability
to perform complex analyses on environmental data which is stored at many locations.
The Integrated Portal also is EPA's link to data sets and systems that are not part of the
Exchange Network. (In FY 2011, the Information Access activities will be funded at $5.4
million)
Geospatial Information and Analysis66 - In FY 2011 EPA will continue providing
place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad
range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities, roads, waste sites, etc.) and natural
features (wetlands, soil types, hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged and can be
accessed digitally, or viewed as overlays on maps. Geospatial information and analysis
play a critical role in the Agency's ability to rapidly and effectively respond in times of
emergency. Additionally, geographic location is becoming a key way to access EPA
digital data and documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will
allow Web-users to retrieve relevant documents by specifying a location that they are
interested in. Implemented as a holistic, enterprise solution, these projects also save
money, assure compatibility, and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software,
data and analytical services. (In FY 2011, the Geospatial Information and Analysis
activities will be funded at $10.3 million)
Envirofacts67 - This area supports a single point of access to EPA databases containing
information about environmental activities that may affect air, water, and land anywhere
in the United States; houses data that has been collected from regulated entities and the
states; and makes that data accessible to environmental professionals, the regulated
community, citizens groups, and to state and EPA employees through an easy-to-use,
one-stop access point. Its components include databases and applications that make
integrated environmental information available to all EPA stakeholders. Envirofacts
directly supports the Agency's strategic goal of fulfilling Americans "Right-to-Know"
about their environment which in turn supports EPA's mission to protect human health
and the environment. It also supports integrated data access, a key component in the
planned enterprise architecture that will support EPA's current and future business needs.
Envirofacts also is being used to help plan and conduct multi-media inspections, and to
support emergency response and planning. In FY 2011 the program will consolidate
operations of, and reduce service delivery by, key components of the Agency's corporate
data management product suite. These components, including the Envirofacts data
warehouse, the Facility Registry System and the System of Registries will be combined
into a single operation under a single Federal manager. The scope of services being
delivered will be refocused and the manner in which users receive service will change.
Rather than serving the public directly through a Web-based interface, these products will
be retooled to offer Web services for other applications to consume. This will complete
65 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
66 For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/
67 For more information on Envirofacts, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
383
-------
the transition from a series of EPA-funded databases to a services-orientation whereby the
consumer gets direct service from a secondary provider. (In FY 2011, Envirofacts
activities will be funded at $2.7 million)
• IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning - FY 2011 activities will
ensure that all due steps are taken to reduce redundancy among information systems and
data bases, streamline and systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities,
and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM activities and systems. This
category includes EPA's implementation of an Enterprise Architecture and the Capital
Planning and Investment Control68 process (CPIC), to assist the Agency in making better
informed decisions on IT/IM investments and resource allocations. (In FY 2011, the
IT/IM Policy and Planning activities will be funded at $15.3 million)
• Electronic Records and Content Management - FY 2011 activities in this area
primarily create the systems, and establish and maintain the processes, to convert paper
documents into electronic documents, convert paper-based processes into systems that
rely less on paper documents, and manage the electronic documents. By doing so, these
activities reduce costs, improve accessibility, and improve security for all of the
documents entered into the system. Electronic documents do not take up storage space,
and do not need a filing staff to locate documents for customers, and then re-file them
after they are used. A single copy of an electronic document can be accessed
simultaneously by numerous individuals, and from virtually any place on the planet.
Using a collaborative process, in FY 2011 the Agency will continue implementing the
ECMS project, an enterprise-wide, multi-media solution designed to manage and organize
environmental data and documents for EPA, Regional offices, field offices and
laboratories. Previously fragmented data storage approaches will be converted into a
single standard platform which is accessible to everyone, reducing data and document
search time, while improving security and information retention efforts. (In FY 2011, the
Electronic Records and Content Management activities will be funded at $3.1 million)
• Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME) - EPA will implement and maintain the
EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over 200 top-level pages that facilitate access to
the many information resources available on the EPA Web site, as well as support Web
hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary
delivery mechanism for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders
and the public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY
2011, the IOME activities will be funded at $5.5 million)
• Information Reliability and Privacy - FY 2011 EPA will continue to ensure that all of
the data collected by the Agency comes from reliable sources, is stored in a manner that is
consistent with its security needs, and is only made available to those who are authorized
to have access. These efforts apply to environmental information, including data that is
submitted by and shared among the states, tribes and territories, as well as other types of
! For more information on the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/OEI/cpic/
384
-------
information, such as business information that is reported by various industry
communities, and personal information for all EPA employees. (In FY 2011, the
Information Reliability and Privacy activities will be funded at $1.0 million)
• IT/IM Infrastructure - This area supports the information technology infrastructure,
administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications for all EPA
employees and other on-site workers at over 100 locations, including EPA Headquarters,
all ten regions, and the various labs and ancillary offices. More specifically, these
activities provide what is known as "workforce support," which includes desktop
equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote access, telephone
services and maintenance, Web and network servers, IT related maintenance, IT security,
and electronic records and data.
In 2011, EPA will expand the use of innovative multi-year leasing that sustains and
renews technical services (e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance) in a stable
least-cost manner as technologies change. EPA also will upgrade EPA's Web presence
to facilitate finding and using environmental information on the Internet. And EPA will
expand and upgrade its Wide Area Network (WAN) to accommodate the continuously
growing demands on bandwidth as system capabilities and numbers of public users grow.
(In FY 2011, the IT/IM Infrastructure activities will be funded at $54.7 million)
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. There are no specific
performance measures under this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,757.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (-$2,112.07-14.3 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources, including: 6.0 FTE and
associated payroll, from IT/DM to Exchange Network, 8.2 FTE and associated payroll to
TRI, and a 0.1 FTE reduction in the regions.
• (-$508.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency's IT and telecommunications resources
for Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program and other related IT and telecommunications needs.
• (-$111.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$186.0) This increase reflects a realignment of resources from LUST and Oil
appropriations to provide more efficient accounting of program funding.
• (-$1,256.0) This reduction reflects expected savings from consolidating Envirofacts,
Facility Registry System, and System of Registries under a single Federal manager.
385
-------
• (+$2,000.0) This change supports enhancements to information access and Web tools to
promote transparency and open government. With EPA's improved Web pages and Web-
accessible information, the public will have greater access to environmental information.
EPA's upgrade to Web tools will make environmental information more accessible and
provide it in a format preferred by the public.
• (+$791.0) This change allows EPA to stay on schedule for several projects that support
EPA programs by providing enhanced tools and infrastructure. These projects include:
developing improved Environmental Indicators, deploying enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions such as the Enterprise Content Management System, expanding
the capabilities of the National Geospatial Program, upgrading desktop services in the
regions, Capital Planning and Investment Control, and Identity Access Management.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA;
FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA;
CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
386
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
387
-------
Administrative Law
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,584.8
$4,584.8
29.9
FY2010
Enacted
$5,275.0
$5,275.0
33.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,332.0
$5,332.0
33.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$57.0
$57.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program project supports EPA's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB or the Board). The ALJs preside in hearings and issue initial decisions in
cases initiated by EPA's enforcement program concerning environmental violations. The EAB
issues final decisions in environmental adjudications (primarily enforcement and permit-related),
that are on appeal to the Board. The EAB also serves as the final approving body for proposed
settlements of enforcement actions initiated by the Agency. ALJs and the EAB issue decisions
under the authority delegated by the Administrator. The decisions reflect findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJs and EAB will continue to further the Agency's
mission to protect human health and the environment. The ALJs will preside in hearings and
issue initial decisions in cases brought by EPA's enforcement program against those accused of
environmental violations under various environmental statutes. The right of affected persons to
appeal those decisions is conferred by various statutes, regulations and constitutional due process
rights. The EAB issues the Agency's final decisions in environmental adjudications on appeal to
the Board. These decisions are the end point for appeals in the Agency's administrative
enforcement and permitting programs.
The Agency has sought efficiencies in this process. The ALJs increased the use of alternative
dispute resolution techniques to facilitate the settlement of cases and avoided more costly
litigation. The EAB and ALJs also use videoconferencing technology to reduce expenses for
parties involved in the administrative litigation process. In FY 2011, the EAB plans to monitor
the electronic filing of original documents with the Board as first permitted in FY 2010 and, at
the end of FY 2011, assess whether any changes to the process are needed. This should result in
greater efficiencies for all concerned. The EAB will continue its two-year pilot project initiated
388
-------
in FY 2010 on the use of alternative dispute resolution in cases on appeal, to be followed by an
assessment of the results of the pilot and modifications as appropriate. The Board will also
continue to support international judicial environmental training consistent with Agency
priorities. (In FY 2011, the ALJ office will be funded at $2.93 million and 18.3 FTE, and the
EAB will be funded at $2.41 million and 15.4 FTE.)
Performance Targets Narrative:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$68.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects our effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; SOW A; EPCRA; as provided in Appropriations
Act funding.
389
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,280.5
$1,369.4
$2,649.9
6.3
FY2010
Enacted
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,390.0
$913.0
$2,303.0
7.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$243. 0
$20.0
$263.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. The intent is to offer a cost-effective process to resolve
disputes.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to provide conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA
headquarters and Regional Offices and external stakeholders on environmental matters. The
national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent and resolve
disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and mediators - more readily
available for those purposes. Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR
techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in many contexts, including
adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and civil judicial enforcement
actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and grants,
stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$244.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
390
-------
• (-$2.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$1.0) This reflects a net change in contracts and general expenses to support an
increase in IT and telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
391
-------
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,898.0
$11,898.0
68.0
FY2010
Enacted
$12,224.0
$12,224.0
69.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$12,366.0
$12,366.0
69.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$142.0
$142.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of Civil Rights provides policy direction and guidance on equal employment
opportunity, civil rights, affirmative employment, diversity, and reasonable accommodations for
the Agency's program offices, Regional offices and laboratories. EPA's Civil Rights Programs
include Title VI compliance; review and complaint adjudication; intake and processing of
complaints of discrimination from Agency employees and applicants for employment under Title
VII; implementation of processes and programs in support of reasonable accommodation; and
affirmative employment and diversity program planning and implementation.
Program functions include accountability for implementation, program evaluation and
compliance monitoring of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Titles VI, VII, IX), and legislative
requirements and executive orders covering civil rights, affirmative employment, disability,
alternative dispute resolution, and reasonable accommodation. The program also interprets
policies and regulations, ensures compliance with civil rights laws, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) directives and equal employment initiatives, and upholds the
civil rights of EPA employees and prospective employees as required by Federal statutes and
Executive Orders.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will continue to focus on its core mission, to insure
the fair and equitable treatment of all employees and applicants for employment, and to foster an
environment wherein diversity is recognized as a valuable resource within the Agency. OCR
plans to conduct compliance reviews of five recipients of EPA financial assistance in FY 2011.
The Agency's Civil Rights External Compliance Program also plans to identify and implement
more effective and timely processes for the resolution of external complaints. (In FY 2011, the
Headquarters Office of Civil Rights will be funded at $8.44 million and 39.5 FTE.)
392
-------
In FY 2011, the OCR will:
• Work with the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services
and the Department of Education on issues regarding discrimination on the basis of age,
sex, and other factors, as well as working with varying Federal agencies that may
simultaneously receive discrimination complaints from the same complainant regarding a
particular recipient.
• Aggressively work to reduce processing time for complaints of discrimination and
increase the number of complaints resolved through the alternative dispute resolution.
• Ensure that certification training, refresher training, and technical guidance are provided
to more than 100 collateral duty Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselors in the
Agency's Regional offices and at Headquarters, annually. OCR will provide guidance
and technical direction to its EEO Officers and provide technical assistance, as needed.
• Re-establish an EEO presence in the EPA Las Vegas (LV) Laboratory and develop EEO
training programs to specifically address concerns in the LV lab.
• Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Reasonable Accommodation process.
Provide technical assistance to managers, supervisors, employees and the designated
Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators, in the form of expert training and
consultation by the Northeast Regional Application Center, to insure efficient
implementation of the policy and procedures.
• Monitor the Agency's compliance with various statutes, EEOC regulations, EPA policy
and procedures related to the reasonable accommodation of qualified applicants and
employees with disabilities.
• Conduct special emphasis programs that increase cultural awareness of minorities;
women, and persons with disabilities, as well as celebrate the diversity of our Agency.
• Complete the Agency's 2009 Affirmative Employment Program plan and brief senior
management in all headquarters program offices and work with Regional EEO officers to
develop briefing strategies for Regional management teams. AED shall monitor all plans
(Regional and headquarters) and establish a metric for determining progress in achieving
"model EEO status."
• Re-evaluate and revise the Agency's current policy on processing of complaints of
discrimination based on sexual orientation and revise/update, as appropriate.
• Issue new policy on harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
• Link the Agency's applicant flow data with the existing database for workforce diversity.
OCR will engage the Office of Human Resources in the development of more meaningful
and effective recruitment plans.
393
-------
• Conduct a comparative analysis of EEOC's 462 reporting requirement covering fiscal
years 2007-2009.
• Work with the Office of Human Resources, appropriate program offices and Regional
offices to affect recruitment strategies that will result in 2 percent of the Agency's
workforce being comprised of employees with disabilities.
• Ensure that less than 15 percent of all Title VII complaints will exceed the established
timeframes.
• Work with EPA's Office of General Counsel to close 14 Title VI complaints.
As a result of these activities, the Agency's mission will be supported by a workforce that is as
diverse as the communities it serves, goal oriented, and treated in a fair and non-discriminatory
manner.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$245.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects our effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$92.0) This reflects a decrease to contract support following evaluation of program
needs as part of the effort to realign resources across the Agency.
Statutory Authority:
CRA VII, as amended; FWPCA amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Rehabilitation
Act of 1974, as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The ADA Amendments Act
of 2008, OWBPA as amended; ADEA as amended EEOC Management Directive 715; Executive
Orders 13163, 13164, 13078, 13087, 13171, 11478, 13125, 13096, 13230, 13270 July 3, 2002
(Tribal Colleges), 13339 May 13, 2004 (Asian American Participation in Federal Programs).
394
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,917.2
$716.7
$42,633.9
242.6
FY2010
Enacted
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$44,002.0
$752.0
$44,754.0
252.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,340.0
$6.0
$1,346.0
1.6
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices will provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. This
excludes other support activities necessary for the operation of the Agency.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency is committed to providing sound legal advice. In FY 2011, legal advice to
environmental programs will continue to include litigation support representing EPA and
providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant, as well as those cases where EPA
is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are
necessary for Agency management and program offices on matters involving environmental
issues including, for example, providing interpretations of, and drafting assistance on, relevant
and applicable laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials.
In FY 2011, the Agency will evaluate and reform the Title VI program, giving emphasis to the
evaluation of potential long-term institutional changes to the Agency's Title VI complaint
process. The additional resources will help ensure that all appropriate Agency components are
used to create a timely and effective Title VI process.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
395
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,204.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$74.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$9.0) This reflects realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for the
Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the Information
Security program and other IT and telecommunications needs.
• (-$110.0) This reflects a redirection of contracts to support increases in general expenses
and IT and telecommunications resources.
• (-$128.07 -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction in legal support for the Appalachian surface
coal mining interagency action plan, which includes 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of
$128.0. The decrease in resources aligns with the required effort in FY 2011 to review
program guidance and permit reviews associated with revised policies for the
Appalachian surface coal mining.
• (+$457.0/+2.5FTE) This reflects an increase for legal support for requirements under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which includes $457.0 in associated payroll for 2.5 additional
FTE. The additional resources will be used to help resolve the Agency's backlog of
pending Title VI complaints.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
396
-------
Legal Advice: Support Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,236.7
$14,236.7
81.3
FY2010
Enacted
$14,419.0
$14,419.0
86.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,735.0
$15,735.0
86.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,316.0
$1,316.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The General Counsel and the Regional Counsel offices provide legal representational services,
legal counseling and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the Agency.
This program focuses on administrative requirements determined by statutes, GAO decisions and
Federal agency regulations.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support will continue to
be provided for all Agency activities as necessary for the operation of the Agency (i.e., contracts,
personnel, information law, ethics and financial/monetary issues). Legal services include
litigation support representing EPA and providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a
defendant, as well as those cases where EPA is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the
case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are necessary for Agency management and
administrative offices on matters involving actions affecting the operation of the Agency,
including, for example, providing interpretations of relevant and applicable laws, regulations,
directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,345.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
397
-------
• (-$29.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
398
-------
Regional Science and Technology
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,311.4
$3,311.4
1.9
FY2010
Enacted
$3,271.0
$3,271.0
2.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$3,283.0
$3,283.0
2.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$12.0
$12.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Regional Science and Technology (RS&T) Program supports the purchase of equipment for
the Regional laboratories, field investigation teams, and mobile laboratory units, as well as
equipment required for laboratory quality assurance and quality control. RS&T activities
support all of the Agency's national programs (including enforcement) and goals, by supplying
laboratory analysis, field monitoring and sampling, and through efforts to build Tribal capacity
for environmental monitoring and assessment.
The RS&T program provides essential expertise for a multitude of national programs, including
but not limited to ambient air, water quality, monitoring activities, and areas involving
environmental biology, microbiology, chemistry, and criminal investigations. EPA has made
significant strides toward improving environmental data collection and laboratory analytical
capacity and capability to strengthen science-based decision-making. The program's applied
science expertise is used to develop and modify analytical methods for specialty work such as
emerging chemicals of concern and provides scientific consultation to Agency, state, and Tribal
partners. Funding for equipment is essential for continued progress and enhanced capabilities in
order to respond to emergencies, emerging environmental issues, and to improve efficiencies.
The RS&T program provides in-house expertise and technical capabilities in the generation of
data for Agency decisions and differs from the Agency's research operation by focusing on
applied science needs rather than short or long term research. RS&T resources support the
development of critical and timely environmental data, rapid data review in emerging situations,
and development of enhanced capabilities for proper environmental assessment of chemical
warfare agents.
399
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, RS&T resources will support Regional implementation of the Agency's statutory
mandates through field operations for environmental sampling and monitoring. Regional
laboratories perform environmental analytical testing, monitoring, special studies method
development, quality assurance oversight, and data management support. Direct laboratory
support also increases efficiencies in Regional program management and implementation by
allowing the Regions to focus on addressing environmental issues which may be specific to
certain geographic areas in the Nation (e.g. mountain top mining, wood treating operations, oil
refining, etc.).
The Agency will stay abreast of rapidly changing technologies (i.e., new software, rapid analysis
instrumentation, and new analytical capabilities; such as Polymerase Chain Reaction Technology
and Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry), as well as new remote sensing technologies, that allow
EPA to collect and analyze samples more cost effectively, quickly, and/or detect lower levels of
contaminants, and to assay new and emerging contaminants of concern. In accordance with new
policy directives and current issues/concerns, the Agency will enhance laboratory and field
monitoring capacity and capability to ensure that it implements critical environmental
monitoring and rapid analysis, partners with existing laboratory networks and state/local
organizations, and develop enhanced response, recovery and cleanup procedures.
EPA's Regional laboratories contribute to various aspects of the Agency's performance
measures in each of the major Agency programs. For example, the Civil and Criminal
Enforcement OMB performance assessment measures are supported through significant
technical and analytical activities for civil and criminal enforcement cases, including the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Water Act, and
Superfund programs. The laboratories analyze samples associated with a variety of illicit
activities including unpermitted discharges, illegal storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes,
and illegal dumping. Resulting data are used by the Agency's Criminal Investigation Division
and by Assistant U.S. Attorneys to support prosecution of civil and criminal cases.
Other examples of activities that support results measurement include operating laboratory
equipment such as Standard Reference Photometers, which are used to ensure that the national
network of ozone ambient monitors accurately measure ozone concentrations in support of
Mobile Source and Air Toxics OMB performance assessment measures. Also, many of the
analyses performed by Regional laboratories support the cleanup of uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites associated with the Superfund Program. Analytical support also is
provided for identifying and assessing risks associated with pesticides and other high risk
chemicals.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
400
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$6.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources.
• (+$10.0) This reflects an increase to contract resources for this program.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
401
-------
Regulatory Innovation
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$21,827.7
$21,827.7
109.2
FY2010
Enacted
$18,917.0
$18,917.0
82.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$19,828.0
$19,828.0
72.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$911.0
$911.0
-10.8
Program Project Description:
EPA is reorienting its regulatory innovation work to accomplish a new Administration priority -
the development of strategies that promote greener, revitalized, sustainable communities,
businesses, and industries. Doing so will enable the Agency to meet its core mission goals of
protecting human health and the environment by providing more tools and resources to
communities to help create stronger, more economically and environmentally resilient
communities.
The program provides strategic leadership that will enable the Agency to contribute effective
policies, practices and tools to promote greening of U.S. communities, businesses and industries.
Working across EPA's programs and mission activities, the program will coordinate and
integrate Agency strategies and address emerging cross-cutting issues related to reducing
environmental degradation from development and industries.
EPA plays a critical role in achieving better environmental outcomes from development patterns
and buildings. EPA helps community and government leaders meet environmental standards
through innovative community and building design, policies, and infrastructure investment
strategies. EPA accomplishes this work by: (1) strengthening collaborative work with federal,
state, and local agencies, (2) providing community assistance and training; and (3) developing
standards and design approaches that support sustainable communities. EPA is working to
improve these outcomes in the built environment to protect environmental quality and public
health, while avoiding disproportionate harm to disadvantaged communities.
EPA also is analyzing and promoting new strategies for: energy and natural resource use,
materials management, increased sustainability in goods and services, and financial transparency
on environmental issues. These new efforts are designed to maximize the longer-term benefits
of near-term investments in a cleaner, healthier environment and economy.
402
-------
EPA will draw on its innovation and cross-media experience to provide strategic focus, analysis,
and cross-Agency coordination to these efforts. The Regulatory Innovation program will work
across offices, programs, and Regions, and effectively partner with states, other Federal
agencies, and other external stakeholders to integrate economic and environmental protection
goals. To ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs and strategies, this program
will also continue to advance management improvements through activities such as program
evaluation, performance analysis, and the application of "lean" government tools.
Finally, this program will continue to support advancements in analytic tools and methods
designed to reveal the connectedness and complexities of relationships between the benefits from
policies targeted at reducing risks to human health and ecological resources, and how these
policies impact economic activity and measures of sustainable growth and development.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, activities will include:
Sustainable Communities/Smart Growth Program: EPA requests additional resources to expand
Smart Growth work to support the Federal DOT, HUD, EPA partnership, to provide additional
Smart Growth technical assistance to states and local communities, and to develop additional
tools and other community resources. In addition, EPA's facilitation and convening role on
green building practices will be integrated with its Smart Growth program because of the
importance of sustainable design at multiple scales: Regional, neighborhood, and site. The
Sustainable Communities/Smart Growth program works with Federal (including other parts of
EPA) and state partners to develop policies, regulations, standards, guidelines, spending
priorities that support sustainable development. This work helps ensure that policies, actions,
rules, standards, guidelines and spending at the national and state levels do not favor
development that adversely affects the environment and public health or disproportionally harms
disadvantaged communities.
• Engaging Federal Partners. With the new U.S. Department of Transportation-U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban and Development-U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Partnership for Sustainable Communities69, EPA is working with its program
offices and regions as they implement activities related to the Partnership. Potential areas
of work within EPA may include storm water regulations, Brownfield assistance,
environmental justice, energy and water efficient buildings, green building, and climate
change mitigation and adaptation. In FY 2011, EPA will work to catalyze changes in
Federal rules, regulations, policies, programs, and spending to better support creation of
sustainable communities. EPA will do this by providing support and Smart Growth
expertise to other Federal agencies - such as HUD, DOT, USDA, FEMA and NOAA -
will help them achieve greater environmental benefits through their programs, policies,
regulations, and resources while meeting their core agency objectives. EPA also will
work to establish better training and education programs on implementing sustainable
community approaches - particularly for Federal and state government employees in a
variety of agencies.
69 For more information, please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/index.html
403
-------
• Providing Technical Assistance. The Agency also provides a variety of types of direct
technical assistance to state and local governments to promote more sustainable
development outcomes at the neighborhood, Regional, and state levels. Through this
technical assistance, the Sustainable Communities program provides expertise to help
communities achieve the greatest environmental and public health benefit from major
public investments and policy decisions. Research efforts are focused on developing and
field testing tools to help facilitate better development and public investment decisions.
In FY 2011, EPA will expand its current technical assistance programs to Tribal, state,
Regional, and local governments as they seek to develop ways that could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate change, implement green infrastructure
approaches, incorporate green building practices, or promote equitable development by
providing better transit access, safer routes to schools, and housing opportunities for
distressed communities. EPA will accomplish these goals by: (1) expanding the current
set of smart growth implementation tools and development mechanisms, (2) delivering
assistance with these tools to a larger number of recipient communities, and (3)
expanding policy assistance to states through the Governors' Institute on Community
Design.
EPA Regional staff will be fully incorporated into technical assistance efforts, as will
partners from the HUD and DOT, as appropriate. In addition, EPA will develop a new
program aimed at increasing capacity within long-standing metropolitan, Regional or
state-based organizations to support smart growth and green building implementation in
their region through education, training, and technical assistance related to the activities
of the Federal Sustainable Communities Partnership.
• Developing Tools and Other Community Resources. Finally, because both smart growth
development and sustainable building implementation are dependent, in part, on local
codes, ordinances and standards, EPA works with, and convenes, a wide variety of
stakeholders to ensure that rules and practices guiding the development, redevelopment
and operations of communities and buildings support more environmentally sustainable
outcomes. For example, EPA will facilitate consensus around voluntary sustainable
building standards, and participate in external third-party standards development to
improve their environmental effectiveness. EPA is also developing technical analysis,
guidance and implementation tools to improve building practices. For FY 2011, EPA
will expand its applied research and policy assessment to develop more practical place-
based tools and resources for communities across the urban-to-rural spectrum. Finally,
EPA will develop new tools communities can use to evaluate the environmental
implications of land use, transportation and housing policies and investments to reduce
climate change impacts and implementation tools on innovative approaches to building
codes, building retrofits, street design standards, and zoning codes.
(In FY 2011, the Sustainable Communities/Smart Growth program will be funded at $9.91
million under the Regulatory Innovation program, and $1.32 million under the Brownfields
program.)
404
-------
Promoting a Greener Economy: EPA will realign and build upon its prior innovation and cross-
media experience with a strategic focus on efforts that help to advance the goal of a greener
economy. Emphasizing emerging, cross-cutting issues that do not have an exclusive home
elsewhere in the Agency, the program provides leadership to align the entire Agency's resources
and programs to create a coordinated response in partnership with states, other Federal agencies,
and other external stakeholders to integrate economic development and improved environmental
protection. To ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency programs and strategies, this
program will also continue to advance management improvements through activities such as
program evaluation, performance analysis, and the application of "lean" government tools.
The specific issues addressed in this program will evolve over time, but near term areas of focus
include:
Articulating and operarationalizing, strategies through which EPA can promote improved
materials management and resource efficiency, to allow the economy to grow while at the
same time shrinking its environmental footprint;
Analyzing the financial sector implications of environmental performance, and
developing strategies to ensure transparency in reporting so that markets are well-
informed.
- Integrating efforts across the Agency to promote greener, sustainable products, to ensure
that policy issues are identified and addressed, and that the Agency participates
effectively in the discussion of product labeling and greenwashing;
Spearheading EPA's support for efforts across the federal government to develop a
greener workforce, ensuring that the expertise, resources, and opportunities available
within the Agency's programs are effectively brought to bear on those efforts in
partnership with other federal agencies, states, communities, and educational institutions
Under efforts such as these, activities in FY2011 will include analysis, development of new
policies and tools, demonstration of new strategies, cross-agency coordination, and external
communication of agency views and expertise. Established relationships with other Federal
agencies, states, communities and others will serve both as a source of learning for EPA and as a
means for deploying new tools and policies. EPA will analyze the role that government agencies
(Federal, state, local) would play in supporting progress toward a greener economy and will
identify areas in which development of new agency policies and tools may help that progress.
Additionally, EPA will analyze its own policies, statutory authorities, programs and activities
related to these segments of the economy and will identify areas for new policy development,
especially gaps that need to be filled.
Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis: EPA uses program evaluation and performance
analysis to support evidence-based decisions about which programs protect human health and the
environment in the most efficient and the most cost-effective ways. This is particularly important
in an era of fiscal responsibility that calls for greater Federal accountability and public
transparency of our programs. EPA acknowledges that rigorous, independent empirical evidence
plays an important role in effective environmental policy and EPA is committed to publicly
disseminating complete evaluation findings, regardless of whether conclusions are consistent
with Agency expectations.
405
-------
In FY 2011, resources will be provided to EPA headquarters and Regional offices to conduct
rigorous evaluations. Specific consideration will be given to evaluations that (a) assess program
effectiveness and efficiency, (b) provide insights on how the use of new approaches may help
better achieve program goals and fulfill the Agency's mission; (c) address issues of strategic
importance to the Agency, or address cross-cutting issues that present challenges to multiple
programs; (d) draw on social science research and tools to evaluate the impact of EPA activities
on the behavior of regulated entities; and (e) assess the statistical rigor and validity of EPA's
outcome measurement data. Resources will support EPA's performance management training
regimen (online and classroom), which enables EPA staff and managers to use essential tools
such as logic modeling and performance measurement. Resources also will support outcomes
and impact measurement projects in collaboration with states and other co-regulators.
Additional funding is requested in FY 2011 to build EPA's capacity to: incorporate evaluation
into new initiatives, evaluate the impact of policy interventions, and assess the outcomes and
impacts of EPA's strategic priorities based on targeted needs. EPA will acquire staff with
program evaluation expertise to: promote rigorous, evidence-based evaluation methods for
transparent external and in-house evaluations, and manage contracts with third-party,
independent evaluators. As part of this capacity building, EPA will also support efforts to make
Agency program data available to the public and enable external evaluators to assess programs.
EPA will continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency programs and policies
through program analysis and review, more efficient operations, and improved information
sharing. EPA will conduct program analysis using quantitative measures and qualitative
information to inform regulatory, policy, and guidance decisions. EPA will coordinate an
effective and proactive management strategy across the Agency, providing analysis and decision-
making support to strengthen Agency performance. (In FY 2011, the Program Evaluation and
Performance Analysis will be funded at $4.88 million.)
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$193.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$52.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's total
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$500.0.07 +2.0 FTE) This is an increase in resources to implement EPA's program
evaluation strategy and build evaluation capacity, which is consistent with the Administration's
Program Evaluation Initiative. The change includes 2.0 FTE, and $300.0 in associated payroll.
406
-------
• (+$1,093.07 +4.0 FTE) This is a realignment of existing 4.0 FTE and associated payroll
supporting the program analysis function consistent with the reorganization of the
program. This includes 4.0 FTE, and $617.0 in associated payroll.
• (+$4,213.07 +5.0 FTE) This increase represents funding to support and integrate the
Smart Growth program as part of the Agency's participation in the Sustainable
Communities Partnership, which is included in EPA's Healthy Communities initiative.
The change includes 5.0 FTE, and $745.0 in associated payroll.
• (-$3,695.07 -13.8 FTE) This decrease represents a reorganization of past regulatory
innovation programs to focus more tightly on efforts that help to promote a greener, more
sustainable economy. The change includes -13.8 FTE, and -$2,077.0 in associated
payroll.
• (-$1,272.07 -8.0 FTE) This decrease represents the discontinuation of the Effective Use of
Environmental Stewardship, which is consistent with the reorganization of the program.
The change includes -8.0 FTE, and -$1,204.0 in associated payroll.
• (-$69.0) This decrease is a net change to programmatic support for the program following
reorganization.
Statutory Authority:
AAA; CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
407
-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
577,677.7
$17,677.1
100.3
FY2010
Enacted
$19,404.0
$19,404.0
104.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$22,640.0
$22,640.0
102.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,236.0
$3,236.0
-2.0
Program Project Description:
EPA ranks second among Federal departments and agencies in the number of regulations issued
annually (typically over 450). EPA takes its regulatory responsibility seriously and has invested
in a centralized regulatory and economic management and analysis function to encourage and
support the development of high quality regulations.
The Regulatory Economic, Management and Analysis program strengthens EPA's regulatory,
economic, and policy development efforts. The program focuses on ensuring an efficient and
effective regulatory and policy planning and decision process, including consistent and
appropriate policy and economic analysis. The program supports consideration of an appropriate
set of alternatives and works to fill gaps in EPA's ability to quantify the costs and benefits of
environmental regulations and policies. Resources are used to manage the EPA regulatory,
policy, and guidance development process; develop, identify and analyze various regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches and policy options; identify successful strategies and regulatory
approaches; and address policy priorities including considering impacts on small business and
governmental entities.
Objectives of the program include:
• Implementing efficient and effective internal procedures that facilitate timely decisions.
• Ensuring that Agency decision-making processes are invested with high quality and
timely information, including relevant science, policy, economic factors, and
consideration of an appropriate range of alternatives to achieve the best overall
environmental results.
• Advancing the theory and practice of quality economics, and promoting policy analysis
and risk analysis within the Agency.
408
-------
• Providing information on the full societal impacts of reducing environmental risks,
including the expected distribution of the costs, benefits and impacts of regulatory
options.
• Building and communicating a more comprehensive picture of the economic
consequences of environmental policies and programs in EPA's economic analyses, and
delivering sound and timely economic, science, regulatory, and program analyses to
support informed management decisions throughout the Agency.
• Leading Agency implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), to address potential
burdens on small entities.
• Working with state representatives to minimize state administrative reporting burden.
• Increasing the transparency of and encouraging public involvement in EPA's regulatory
and policy development efforts through improved use of collaborative networking and
implementation of information technology.
• Improving program effectiveness and efficiency through analysis and information
sharing.
• Promoting appropriate implementation of the Administrative Procedures Act,
Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Program activities planned for FY 2011 include:
• Managing the Agency's internal Action Development Process, and ensuring appropriate
engagement across EPA's headquarters and Regional offices, and leading EPA's review
of other agency and department actions. Providing training, resources, and tools to EPA
staff on the Agency's Action Development process, Economic Analysis Guidelines, and
related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4 on Regulatory Analysis). EPA will review
and revise its economic guidelines so that they remain current with advancements and
reflect best practices in the profession.70
• Participating in the development of the Agency actions, implementing policy priorities in
rulemakings, characterizing the impacts of Agency actions, filling critical gaps in the
Agency's capability to quantify the environmental improvements and economic impacts
of the Agency's regulatory programs, and providing technical assistance when needed to
help meet Agency goals.
70 Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html
409
-------
• Improving the information available to the public about EPA's regulatory, policy and
guidance activities to foster collaboration, encourage innovation, and increase openness
and transparency.
• Chairing Small Business Advocacy Panels and leading implementation of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
• Conducting and supporting research on methods to improve the quality and quantity of
economic science available to inform the Agency's decision makers, including
management of the Science to Achieve Results in the Economic and Decision Sciences
research program. Research priorities include integration of ecological and economic
models to value improvements in ecological functions and services, establishing
improved measures of the economic benefits of reducing health risks to children, and
improvements in surveys and other data collection tools used to gather information on
economic costs and benefits from environmental programs.
• Supporting the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE) survey, the most
comprehensive national source of pollution abatement costs and expenditures related to
environmental protection reported by the manufacturing sector in the United States. The
PACE survey collects facility-level data on pollution abatement capital expenditures and
operating costs associated with compliance with local, state, and Federal regulations, as
well as voluntary or market-driven pollution abatement activities for air, water, and waste
programs.
This information will support efforts to measure the economic costs of regulatory
programs on the manufacturing sector. The data also gives EPA additional means to
monitor the adoption of new environmental technologies, and supports research aimed at
analyzing the impact of environmental regulations on important economic outcomes
related to job growth, international competitiveness, investment demand, opening and
closing of manufacturing facilities, and productivity growth. EPA plans also include
making ready to expand the survey to be prepared to collect data on the costs of
forthcoming GHG emission controls and process changes undertaken either under
voluntary programs, or to meet new regulatory requirements. EPA will lead efforts to
design and perform research studies using the survey data, and supports a website with
information on the survey and research generated using the data:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/pace2005.html
• Facilitating communication between the scientific community and Agency policy
analysts by supporting workshops on priority economic and environmental policy issues.
Examples include analytic tools to measure environmental justice impacts, measuring the
economic benefits of ecological services, measuring human health benefits with a focus
on risks to children, evaluating market mechanisms and incentives, developing improved
risk assessment methods to serve economic analyses, and methods to address
uncertainties in risk and economic analyses71. Support the utilization of high quality
71 For more information on these workshops, please refer to:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpagesAVorkshopSeries.html
410
-------
outside technical peer review of influential economic models and methods used in
Agency regulations.
• Improving the focus on water protection activities by enhancing EPA's capacity to
analyze and estimate the benefit of water protection activities. This includes the
Chesapeake Bay and urban waters.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$356.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$21.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$298.0 / -2.0 FTE) This change includes -2.0 FTE and -$298.0 in associated payroll,
and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align
resources, skills and Agency priorities by streamlining administrative management.
• (+$1,100.0) Additional resources for enhanced regulatory support across the Agency for
the development of 1) science-based methods to assess disproportionate health impacts;
2) advances in the measurement of the beneficial effects of reducing pollutants, including
supporting analysis and development of methods to improve the utility of cancer and
non-cancer risk assessment consistent with recommendations from the National Academy
of Sciences; and 3) supporting research to explore application of the comparative risk
assessment framework and tools to conduct disproportionate impact analysis.
• (+$2,099.0) These resources will increase the National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE) capabilities for: providing original analyses and expanding technical
assistance support for economic benefit-cost and risk analyses pertaining to EPA
regulations; developing better information on the economic implications of
environmental regulations and policies on the competitiveness of domestic industries,
including consideration of trade, employment and productivity effects; increasing efforts
to integrate economic and natural science models to support economic benefits analyses;
and increasing participation in the development and modification of Agency science
policy in response to advances in risk assessment methods and recommendations from
expert institutions such as the National Academy of Science.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 (15 U.S.C. 2603, 2604, and 2605); CWA sections 304 and 308 (33
U.S.C. 1312, 1314, 1318, 1329-1330, 1443); SDWA section 1412 (42 U.S.C. 210, 300g-l);
RCRA/HSWA: (33 USC 40(IV)(2761), 42 USC 82(VIII)(6981-6983)); CAA: 42 USC
85(I)(A)(7403, 7412, 7429, 7545, 7612); CERCLA: 42 USC 103(III)(9651); PPA (42 U.S.C.
13101-13109); FTTA.
411
-------
Science Advisory Board
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,052.1
$5,052.1
25.2
FY2010
Enacted
$6,278.0
$6,278.0
25.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,902.0
$5,902.0
28.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($376.0)
($376.0)
3.4
Program Project Description:
Congress established the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1978 and gave it a broad
mandate to advise the Administrator on a wide range of highly visible and important scientific
matters to ensure that EPA's technical products are of the highest quality. The SAB and two
other statutorily mandated chartered Federal Advisory Committees, the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, draw on a
balanced range of non-EPA scientists and technical specialists from academia, communities,
states, independent research institutions, and industry. This program provides management and
technical support to these Advisory committees charged with providing EPA's Administrator
with independent advice and peer review on scientific and technical aspects of environmental
problems, regulations, and research planning.72
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the SAB will provide scientific and technical advice on topical areas related to: (1)
the technical basis of EPA National Drinking Water Standards for drinking water contaminants
and revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria air pollutants; (2) assessments of
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals; (3) ambient water quality criteria; (4)
homeland security and risk management technologies; (5) economic benefit methods and
analyses; and (4) EPA's research and science programs. The SAB plans to produce 20 advisory
reports on these areas. In FY 2011, NAAQS reviews will continue at an increased pace as the
Agency updates standards on the five year cycle outlined in the statute. (In FY 2011, the funding
for the SAB will be $5.9 million and 28.6 FTE.)
72 Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/.
412
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$399.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$102.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects our effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$387.0) This reflects a reduction in additional resources provided in FY 2010 for
accelerated review of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals.
• (+$512.07 +3.4 FTE) This change includes 3.4 FTE and $512.0 in associated payroll, to
support EPA's plans to have the Science Advisory Board review the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for the six criteria pollutants on a five year cycle.
Statutory Authority:
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA); 42
U.S.C. § 4365; FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. C; CAA Amendments of 1977; 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2);
CAA Amendments of 1990; 42 U.S.C. 7612.
413
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
414
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
Environmental Program Management (EPM) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program are used to fund rent, utilities, security, and energy conservation/sustainable
facilities programs. EPM resources are also used to manage activities and support services in
many centralized administrative areas within EPA. These include health and safety,
environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety,
and environmental management functions. Resources for this program also support a full range
of ongoing facilities management services, including facilities maintenance and operations,
Headquarters security, space planning, shipping and receiving, property management, printing
and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that
monthly billing statements are correct. The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis, and
is implementing a long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of
occupied facilities, consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square
footage where practical. As a result of this effort, in FY 2011, EPA anticipates rent savings of
$5 million to a target of $7.5 million, which will help avoid a portion of the projected rent
increases. In alignment with one of the President's SAVE Award proposals, EPA will
consolidate its facility in Lakewood, Colorado, and release the separate detached building
housing the National Enforcement Training Institute. (For FY 2011, the Agency is requesting a
415
-------
total of $169.92 million for rent, $13.41 million utilities, $30.90 million for security, $11.93
million for transit subsidy, and $6.67 million for Regional moves in the EPM appropriation.)
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new,
advanced technologies, and energy sources. EPA will continue to direct resources towards
acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet
the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 1342373, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Order's
building related environmental performance goals through several initiatives, including
comprehensive facility energy audits, re-commissioning, sustainable building design in Agency
construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve energy
efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green power
purchases, and the use of Energy Star rated products and building standards. In FY 2011, the
Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37
billion British Thermal Units or three percent. EPA should end FY 2011 using approximately
20% less energy than it did in FY 2003. EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance, expands upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions
to green house gas emissions.
EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13150
Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of EO 13423.
EPA will advance the implementation of Safety and Health Management Systems to identify and
mitigate potential safety and health risks in the workplace to ensure a safe working environment.
The Agency's Protection Services Detail (PSD) provides physical protection of the
Administrator, by coordinating security arrangements during routine daily activities, as well as
in-town and out-of-town events. The PSD coordinates all personnel and logistical requirements
including scheduling, local support, travel arrangements, and managing special equipment
needed to carry out its protective function.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in energy
consumption.
FY 2009
Target
12
FY 2009
Actual
18
FY 2010
Target
15
FY2011
Target
18
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,215.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
73 Information is available at http://www. fedcenter. go v/programs/eo 13 514A Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance', and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol 3423A Strengthening Federal Environmental. Energy, and
Transportation Management
416
-------
• (+$12,875.0) This change reflects a net effect of the projected contractual rent increase
and EPM's rent reduction realized from the space consolidation effort, as well as a
rebalancing of cost methodologies between the EPM, S&T, and SF appropriations. The
space consolidation effort provides cost avoidances that help to avoid a portion of the
projected rent increases.
• (-$105.0) This change reflects a decrease in utility costs.
• (+$2,904.0) This change reflects an increase in security costs.
• (+$303.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs.
• (-$3,790.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result
of the completion of the Puerto Rico and Region 10 moves.
• (-$416.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$112.0) This reflects a net change in contracts, grants, and general expenses.
• (+$200.0) This reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPA owned
Regional laboratories.
• (+$32.0) This reflects an increase in general expenses for Regional facility operations
support.
• (+$122.07 +1.0 FTE) This change reflects realignment to the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program from the Acquisition Management program to consolidate property
management services into a single function under the Office of Administration, which
manages the Agency's facilities. This includes 1.0 FTE, and $122.0 in associated payroll.
• (+$165.07 +1.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to support administrative oversight, and
includes 1.0 FTE, and $165.0 in associated payroll.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive
Orders 10577, 12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and
Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service,
Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63
(Critical Infrastructure Protection).
417
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$89,875.3
$1,109.6
$24,154.9
$115,139.8
530.2
FY2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$86,039.0
$1,050.0
$26,934.0
$114,023.0
547.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,205.0
($65.0)
($556.0)
$2,584.0
-0.6
Program Project Description:
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management
of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability
processes, and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. Also included is EPA's
Environmental Finance Program that provides grants to a network of university-based
Environmental Finance Centers which deliver financial outreach services, such as technical
assistance, training, expert advice, finance education, and full cost pricing analysis to states, local
communities and small businesses. (Refer to http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for
additional information). This program also is supported by the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. Additional details can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management through the use
of routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling and other evaluation tools. More structured
and targeted use of performance measurements continue to lead to better understanding of
program results and an increase in effectiveness.
FY 2011 is a critical year in the Agency's efforts to develop and modernize the Agency's
financial systems. The aggressive schedule includes final testing, data migration, and other vital
implementation steps. The Agency will replace its legacy accounting system and related
modules with a new system certified to meet the latest government accounting standards. This
extensive modernization will allow the Agency to improve efficiency and automate quality
control functions to simplify the practical use of the system as well as comply with
Congressional direction and new the Federal financial systems requirements. This work will be
418
-------
framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and will make maximum use of enabling
technologies for e-Gov initiatives.
In FY 2011, EPA will have made significant strides in its accountability and effectiveness of
operations through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments as
required under revised OMB Circular A-123. Improvements in internal controls will further
support EPA's initiatives for improved financial performance. EPA will also continue to ensure
more accessibility to data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance
integration, and management decision-making.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,365.0) This reflects an increase of payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,880.0) This change reflects an increase in contract resources required for the
Agency's Financial System Modernization Project (FSMP) to stay on course with an
aggressive production schedule including system configuration, testing, and preparing
user community for system deployment.
• (-$119.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$87.0) This change reflects a slight increase in general expenses.
• (-$8.0) This change reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications
resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to
the Information Security program.
• (+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources to enhancement of financial management in the regions.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law
and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40 CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982);
FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990);
GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5, USC; National Defense Authorization
Act.
419
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$31,332.7
$139.8
$23,521.1
$54,993.6
339.7
FY2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$33,934.0
$165.0
$24,337.0
$58,436.0
363.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,530.0
$0.0
($347.0)
$1,183.0
0.1
Program Project Description:
Environmental Programs & Management (EPM) resources in this program support contract and
acquisition management activities at Headquarters, Regional offices, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, and Cincinnati, Ohio, facilities. Sound contract management fosters efficiency
and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of its procurement activities, and in fostering relationships with state
and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs. This program
also supports sound management of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funds. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will complete the deployment of its new acquisition system. The current
Acquisition Management System has reached the end of its useful life. Staff increasingly spends
time making the system work as opposed to using the system to accomplish their work. The
system itself is obsolete, and therefore an upgrade is not feasible.
The new system will provide the Agency with a better and more comprehensive way to manage
data on contracts that support mission oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the
Agency to meet E-Government (E-Gov) requirements and the needs of Agency personnel,
resulting in more efficient process implementation. The benefits of the new system are that
program offices will be able to track the progress of individual actions; the Agency will be better
able to met internal and external reporting demands; and the system will integrate with the
Agency's financial and government-wide shared services systems.
420
-------
In addition, the Agency will utilize the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE), an E-Gov
initiative that creates a secure business model that facilitates and supports cost-effective
acquisition of goods and services by Federal agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the
current acquisition environment. The program also will continue to implement new training
requirements associated with the IAE, and the new acquisition system.
In FY 2011, resources are being added to EPA's budget for additional acquisition management
support. The funds shall be available only to supplement, and not to supplant existing
acquisition workforce activities. Such funds shall be available for training, recruitment,
retention, and hiring additional members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). These funds shall also be
available for information technology in support of acquisition workforce effectiveness or for
management solutions to improve acquisition management.
In FY 2011, EPA will reinforce its contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level
Assessments, a Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) Verification and Validation exercise,
increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel, and Simplified
Acquisition Contracting Officer (SACO) reviews. These measures will further strengthen EPA's
acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,331.0) This change reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing
FTE.
• (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$113.0) This increase reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications
resources.
• (-$1,050) This change reflects a reduction of additional funding provided in FY 2010 for
deployment of the new acquisition system.
• (-$120.07 -1.0 FTE) This change reflects realignment from the Acquisition Management
program to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program to consolidate property
management services into a single function under the Office of Administration, which
manages the Agency's facilities. This includes -$120.0 in associated payroll.
• (+$1,500.07 +2.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to supplement existing acquisition
workforce activities for training, recruitment, retention, and hiring additional acquisition
421
-------
staff in an effort to enhance acquisition workforce effectiveness. This includes 2.0 FTE,
and $280.0 in associated payroll.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; annual Appropriations Acts; FAR.
422
-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$26,422.9
$2,932.5
$29,355.4
184.6
FY2010
Enacted
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$26,466.0
$3,318.0
$29,784.0
178.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$979.0
$373.0
$1,352.0
0.9
Program Project Description:
Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise over half of the Agency's budget. EPM resources
in this program support activities related to the management of Financial Assistance
Grants/Interagency Agreements (IA), and of suspension and debarment at Headquarters and
within Regional offices. The key components of this program are ensuring that EPA's
management of grants and lAs meet the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding
produces measurable environmental results. This program focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of EPA's assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with
state and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs. This
program also is supported by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funds. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive
and measurable environmental outcomes, and aggressively implementing new and revised
policies on at-risk grantees.74 The Grants Management Plan provides a framework for extensive
improvements in grants management at the technical administrative level, programmatic
oversight level and at the executive decision-making level of the Agency.
EPA will continue to reform grants management by conducting on-site and pre-award reviews of
grant recipients and applicants, by improving systems support, by performing indirect cost rate
reviews, by providing Tribal technical assistance, and by implementing its Agency-wide training
program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers. Oversight activities will include a
' US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finakeport.pdf.
423
-------
substantial program of post award monitoring with a focus on to ensuring that EPA's Recovery
Act grant dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. EPA also will continue to streamline
Grants Management through the E-Government (E-gov) initiative Grants Management Line of
Business (GM LoB). GM LoB offers government-wide solutions to grants management
activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical
stewardship. EPA will continue consolidating the administration of interagency agreements (IA)
at Headquarters and Regional offices into the IA Shared Service Centers (IA SSC) into two
strategic locations, Washington D.C. and Seattle. The IA SSC will provide cradle to grave IA
Administration, including all pre-award, award, management, post-award, and close out
activities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,089.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$59.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$3.0) This decrease reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications
resources.
• (-$48.0) This change reflects a decrease in contract resources supporting this program.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FGCAA; Section 40 CFR Parts 30,
31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
424
-------
Human Resources Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$43,373.2
$3.0
$5,475.1
$48,851.3
301.8
FY2010
Enacted
$42,447.0
$0.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$44,842.0
$0.0
$7,081.0
$51,923.0
303.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,395.0
$0.0
$1,501.0
$3,896.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Environmental Programs & Management (EPM) resources in this program support activities
related to the provision of human capital and human resources management services to the entire
Agency. The Agency continually evaluates and improves human resource and workforce
functions, employee development, leadership development, workforce planning, and succession
management.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue its efforts to strengthen its workforce by focusing on areas
that further develop our existing talent, and strengthen our recruitment and hiring programs.
EPA also remains committed to fully implementing EPA 's Strategy for Human Capital15, which
was issued in December 2003 and updated in 2005. As result of that review, the desired
outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus on measurable results. In FY 2011, the
Agency will continue its efforts to implement a Workforce Planning System by:
• Closing competency gaps for Toxicology, Information Technology, Human Resources,
Grant and Contract Specialist positions, as well as leadership positions throughout the
Agency and across multiple goals;
• Shortening the hiring timeframes for the senior executives and non-SES positions
through improved automation and enhancements to application process; and
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations.
' US EPA, Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategv.pdf
425
-------
As part of these activities, EPA will continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
Agency human resources operations through the recently established Shared Service Centers.
These Shared Service Centers process personnel and benefits actions for EPA's 17 thousand
employees, as well as vacancy announcements. The establishment of Human Resources Shared
Service Centers reflects EPA's ongoing commitment to improve the Agency operations. The
centers will enhance the timeliness and quality of customer service, and standardize work
processes.
In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the E-
gov initiative, and the Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) program. HR LoB offers
government-wide, cost effective, and standardized HR solutions while providing core
functionality to support the strategic management of human capital. In FY 2011, EPA will
continue to support the transition to a new HR system which will establish modern, cost-
effective, standardized, interoperable HR solutions that provide common core functionality and
support the strategic management of human capital.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent of GS
employees hired within
80 calendar days.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
60
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,524.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$125.0) This reflects a decrease for workers compensation unemployment cost.
• (-$199.0) This change decreases contract resources for human resources management
transactional work resulting from efficiencies created from the Human Resources Shared
Service Centers.
• (+$105.0) This change increases resources for EPA's Sign Language program.
• (-$901.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$9.0) This reflects a decrease in Agency IT and telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority:
Title V United States Code.
426
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
427
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$60,952.3
$3,159.3
$64,111.6
481.2
FY2010
Enacted
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$64,666.0
$3,806.0
$68,472.0
467.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,722.0
$56.0
$1,778.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment."76
EPA's Pesticides program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that
pesticides already in commerce are safe when used in accordance with the label. As directed by
FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 that amended FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA is responsible for registering and re-
evaluating pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to
pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. To comply with statutory mandates, EPA
must conduct risk assessments using the latest scientific methods to determine the risks that
pesticides pose to human health, as well as plants, animals, and ecosystems which are not the
targets of the pesticide. The risk assessments are peer reviewed and regulatory decisions are
posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and that stakeholders,
including at risk populations, are engaged in decisions affecting their health and environment.77
As part of the regulatory process, the Agency must establish tolerances for the maximum
allowable pesticide residues on food and feed. In setting these food tolerances, EPA must
balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider cumulative and aggregate risks,
and ensure the protection of vulnerable, at risk populations including children and tribes.
EPA began promoting reduced risk pesticides in 1993 by giving registration priority to pesticides
that have lower toxicity to humans and non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants; low
potential for contaminating ground water; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and
76 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/regulating/laws.htm
77 The public can see what dockets are currently opened and provide comments at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/.
428
-------
compatibility with Integrated Pest Management (IPM).78 Several countries and international
organizations also have instituted programs to facilitate registering reduced risk pesticides. EPA
works with the international scientific community and Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) member countries to register new reduced-risk pesticides and
establish related tolerances (maximum residue limits). Through these efforts, EPA can help
reduce risks to Americans from foods imported from other countries.
The Agency's regional offices provide frontline risk management that ensures the decisions
made during EPA's registration and reevaluation processes are implemented in pesticide use.
For example, millions of agricultural workers are exposed to pesticides in occupations such as
lawn care, health care, food preparation, and landscape maintenance. Each year, the risk
assessments that EPA conducts yield extensive risk-management requirements for hundreds of
pesticides and uses. EPA works to reduce the number and severity of pesticide exposure
incidents by promulgating regulations under the Worker Protection Standard, training and
certifying pesticide applicators, assessing and managing risks, and developing effective
communication and outreach programs.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2011, EPA will review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing pesticides,
and other registration requests in accordance with FQPA standards and Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act timeframes. EPA will process these registration requests with special
consideration given to susceptible populations, especially children. Specifically, EPA will focus
on the foods commonly eaten by children to reduce pesticide exposure to children where the
science identifies potential concerns. Pesticide registration actions focus on the evaluation of
pesticide products before they enter the market.79 EPA will review pesticide data and implement
use restrictions and instructions needed to ensure that pesticides used according to label
directions will not result in unreasonable risk. During its pre-market review, EPA will consider
human health and environmental concerns as well as the pesticide's potential benefits.
In FY 2011, EPA will review existing pesticides and complete final work plans for pesticides in
the registration review pipeline, for which dockets were opened and final work plans were
completed in earlier years. Through registration review, EPA will ensure that pesticides already
on the market meet current scientific standards and address concerns identified after the original
registration.80 The goal of the registration review program is to review all pesticide registrations
every 15 years to ensure that they meet the most current standards. Implementing the program
will allow EPA to continue to maintain the Agency's goal of ensuring that pesticides in the
marketplace meet the latest health and safety standards.
78 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htm.
79 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration Program
internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm.
80 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration internet site:
www. epa. go v/pesticides/reregistration.
429
-------
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued under reregi strati on reflect changes the
registration review process may determine are needed for an individual pesticide. As part of
RED implementation, EPA will continue to address activities vital to effective "real world"
implementation of the RED requirements. These activities include reviewing product label
amendments that incorporate the mitigation measures from the REDs; publishing proposed and
final product cancellations; promoting partnerships which provide fast/effective risk reduction;
and approving product reregistrations. The Agency also will complete certain proposed and final
tolerance rulemakings to implement the changes in tolerances and tolerance revocations required
in the REDs. The end result of these activities is protecting human health by implementing
statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be available and safe when
used in accordance with the label.
EPA will continue to provide locally-based technical assistance and guidance to states and tribes
on implementation of pesticide decisions. The Agency will address issues including newer/safer
products and improved outreach and education. Technical assistance will include workshops,
demonstration projects, briefings, and informational meetings in areas including pesticide safety
training and use of lower risk pesticides.
EPA will engage the public, the scientific community and other stakeholders in its policy
development and implementation to encourage a reasonable transition for farmers and others
from the older, potentially more hazardous pesticides, to the newer pesticides that have been
registered using the latest available scientific information. The Agency will update the pesticide
review and use policies to ensure compliance with the latest scientific methods. EPA will
emphasize the registration of reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides, in order to provide
farmers and other pesticide users with new alternatives. In FY 2011, the Agency, in
collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), will work to ensure that
minor use registrations receive appropriate support. EPA also will ensure that needs are met for
reduced risk pesticides for minor use crops. EPA will assist farmers and other pesticide users in
learning about new, safer products and methods of using existing products through workshops,
demonstrations, small grants and materials available on the web site and in print.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduced cost per
pesticide occupational
incident avoided.
FY 2009
Target
6
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
8
FY2011
Target
10
Units
Cum.
Reduction
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
moderate to severe
incidents for six
acutely toxic
agricultural pesticides
with the highest
incident rate.
FY 2009
Target
30
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
50
Units
Percent
430
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
concentrations of
pesticides detected in
general population.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
50
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve or maintain a
rate of incidents per
100,000 potential risk
events in population
occupationally
exposed to pesticides.
FY 2009
Target
<=
3.5/100,000
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
<=
3.5/100,000
Units
Incidents
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of decisions
completed on time (on
or before PRIA or
negotiated due date).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
99
FY2011
Target
99
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction of
children's exposure to
rodenticides.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
10
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
agricultural acres
treated with reduced-
risk pesticides.
FY 2009
Target
20
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
21
FY2011
Target
21.5
Units
Percent
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this program's
performance measures are program outputs which represent statutory requirements to ensure that
pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and when
used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While
program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means for
realizing benefits in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace.
431
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,431.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$46.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$106.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects efforts to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$500.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity.
• (-$57.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX Program, a database for locating single
chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality Protection Act;
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
432
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks; Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$42,531.0
$2,121.9
$44,652.9
333.2
FY2010
Enacted
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$43,031.0
$2,312.0
$45,343.0
301.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$828.0
$33.0
$861.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the
economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide."81
In complying with FIFRA, EPA must conduct risk assessments using the latest scientific
methods to determine the risks that pesticides pose to human health, and ecological effects on
plants, animals, and ecosystems which are not the targets of the pesticide. The Agency's
regulatory decisions are posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are
transparent and that stakeholders, including at risk populations, are engaged in decisions which
affect their environment. In addition to FIFRA responsibilities, the Agency has responsibilities
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).82 Under FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide
will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. For food uses of pesticides, this
standard requires EPA to determine that food residues of the pesticide are "safe." For other risk
concerns, EPA must balance the risks of the pesticides with benefits provided from the use of a
product. To ensure unreasonable risks are avoided, EPA may impose risk mitigation measures
such as modifying use rates or application methods, restricting uses, or denying uses. In some
regulatory decisions, EPA may determine that uncertainties in the risk determination need to be
reduced and may subsequently require monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects
on water sources or the development and submission of additional laboratory or field study data
by the pesticide registrant.83
81 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/regulating/laws.htm
82 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)l and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultation
ns, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 internet site:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleOA.html
83 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/regulating/laws.htm
433
-------
Under ESA, EPA must ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions will not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat or result in likely jeopardy to the continued existence of species listed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
threatened or endangered. Given approximately 600 active ingredients in more than 19,000
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. Where risks occur, EPA must work with FWS and NMFS in a consultation process to
ensure these pesticide registrations will meet the ESA standard.
EPA has instituted processes and begun to consider endangered species issues routinely in EPA
reviews. As a result of a lawsuit filed against FWS and NMFS, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington overturned the most critical aspects of a regulation that
would have provided EPA authority to make certain determinations where risks were minimal,
without further consultation with FWS and NMFS.84 In the immediate future EPA will continue
to comply with ESA by engaging in consultation with the FWS and NMFS when required,
including for those situations where risks are minimal. EPA has made assessing potential risks
to endangered species a priority and continues to work with the Services to find efficiencies that
will allow us to meet our ESA obligations.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Reduced concentrations of pesticides in water sources are an indication of the efficacy of EPA's
risk assessment, management, mitigation, and communication activities. Using sampling data
collected under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment
(NWQA) program for urban watersheds, EPA will monitor the impact of our regulatory
decisions for four chemicals of concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and cabaryl. 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.85 In
FY 2011 the Agency will continue to work with USGS to develop sampling plans and refine
program goals.
To measure program work, EPA tracks reductions of concentrations for four organophosphate
insecticides that most consistently exceeded EPA's levels of concerns for aquatic ecosystems
during the last ten years of monitoring by the USGS NWQA program. Registration review
decisions and associated Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) implementation for these four
compounds will result in lower use rates and the elimination of certain uses that will directly
contribute to reduced concentrations of these materials in the nation's waters.
While review of pesticides currently in the marketplace and implementation of the decisions
made as a result of these reviews are a necessary aspect of meeting EPA's goals, they are not
sufficient. Attainment of the goal would be significantly hampered without the availability of
alternative products to these pesticides for the consumer. Consequently, the success of the
84 Wash. Toxics Coalition, v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 457 F. Supp.2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006).
85Gilliom, 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. 171p. Available on the Internet at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/.
434
-------
Registration program in ensuring lower risk and the availability of effective alternative products
plays a large role in meeting the environmental outcome of improved ecosystem protection.
EPA also will continue to assist pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and
methods of using existing products through various means, including workshops,
demonstrations, grants, printed materials and the Internet.
Another program focus in FY 2011 will be providing for the continued protection of threatened
or endangered species from pesticide use, while minimizing regulatory burdens on pesticide
users. EPA will use sound science and best available data to assess the potential risk of
pesticide exposure to federally listed threatened or endangered species and will work with
partners and stakeholders to improve complementary information and databases. As pesticides
are reviewed throughout the course of the registration review cycle, databases that describe the
location and characteristics of species, pesticides and crops will continually be refined with new
information to help ensure consistent and efficient consideration of potential risks to listed
species.
The Agency continues to provide technical support for compliance with the requirements of the
ESA. In FY 2011, EPA will continue the integration of state-of-the-science models, knowledge
bases and analytic processes to increase productivity and better address the challenge of
potential risks of specific pesticides to specific species. Interconnection of the various databases
within the program office will provide improved support to the risk assessment process during
Registration Review by allowing risk assessors to more easily analyze complex scenarios
relative to endangered species.
EPA will continue to implement use limitations through appropriate label statements, referring
pesticide users to EPA-developed Endangered Species Protection Bulletins which are available
on the Internet via Bulletins Live!86 These bulletins will, as appropriate, contain maps of
pesticide use limitation areas necessary to ensure protection of listed species and, therefore,
EPA's compliance with the ESA. Any such limitations on a pesticide's use will be enforceable
under the misuse provisions of FIFRA. Bulletins are a critical mechanism for ensuring
protection of listed species from pesticide applications while minimizing the burden on
agriculture and other pesticide users by limiting pesticide use in the smallest geographic area
necessary to protect the species.
In FY 2011, pesticides beginning registration review are expected to require comprehensive
environmental assessments, including determining endangered species impacts. This may result
in an expanded workload due to the necessity of issuing data call ins (DCIs) and conducting
additional environmental assessments for pesticides already in the review pipeline.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost and
average time to
produce or update an
FY 2009
Target
$2,916, 73
hrs.
FY 2009
Actual
N/A*
FY 2010
Target
$2,625, 66
hrs.
FY2011
Target
$2,364, 60
hrs.
Units
Cost, Hours
'http://www.epa.gov/espp/bulletins.htm
435
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Endangered Species
Bulletin.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of agricultural
watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic
life benchmarks for
two key pesticides of
concern (azinphos-
methyl and
chlorpyrifos).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
0, 10
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of urban
watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic
life benchmarks for
three key pesticides of
concern (diazinon,
chlorpyrifos and
malathion)
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
5, 0, 20
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of pesticide
registration review
dockets opened.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
70
FY2011
Target
71
Units
Dockets
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of pesticide
registration review
final work plans
completed.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
70
FY2011
Target
70
Units
Work Plans
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of Product
Reregistration
Decisions
FY 2009
Target
2,000
FY 2009
Actual
1,770
FY 2010
Target
1,500
FY2011
Target
1,500
Units
Decisions
436
-------
Some of the measures for this program are program outputs which, when finalized, represent the
program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for
human health and the environment, and when used in accordance with the packaging label
present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While program outputs are not the best measures of
risk reduction, they do provide a means for reducing risk in that the program's safety review
prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.
In FY 2011, EPA is continuing to implement the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA) as well as the registration
review process. As part of EPA's efforts to improve accountability, the Agency will track these
areas through three measures. These include: (1) percent of decisions completed in accordance
with the PRIA and PRIRA or mutually negotiated times; (2) number of Registration Review
dockets opened for each pesticide entering the review process to seek comments on the
information the Agency has on the active ingredient; (3) number of final work plans completed
for each active ingredient after comments are evaluated and required data are complete.
The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of
pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and
policy decisions. USGS is currently sampling in its second cycle (cycle II) from 2002-2012, and
is developing sampling plans for 2013-2022. The monitoring plan calls for biennial early
sampling in eight urban watersheds and sampling every four years in a second set of nine urban
watersheds; and yearly monitoring in eight agricultural watersheds and biennial sampling in
three agricultural dominated watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will range from
approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the size of the watershed and the extent
of the pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is seasonally weighted so more samples are
collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest.
EPA is actively committed to producing and updating Endangered Species Bulletin in a timely
and cost effective manner. However in 2009, no Bulletins were issued due to ongoing ligation.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$924.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$45.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$51.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality Protection Act;
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
437
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks; Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
572,772.7
$442.8
$13,215.5
89.4
FY2010
Enacted
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,156.0
$546.0
$14,702.0
93.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,011.0
$9.0
$1,020.0
3.5
Program Project Description:
Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of
"unreasonable adverse effects on the environments" expands upon the concept of protecting
against unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding "taking into account the
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide. "87
Through ongoing education and research in environmentally sound pest remediation methods,
the Realize the Value of Pesticides program ensures that effective and safe pesticides are
available for regular use and in emergency situations. Examples of actions that lead to societal
benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA Section 18. For example, in the event of an
emergency such as a severe pest infestation, FIFRA Section 18 provides EPA the authority to
temporarily exempt certain pesticide uses from registration requirements. Under Section 18,
EPA must ensure that, under the very limiting provisions of the exemption, such emergency uses
will not present an unreasonable risk to the environment. In such cases, EPA's goal is to
complete the more detailed and comprehensive review for potential unreasonable risk conducted
for pesticide registration within three years following the emergency.
FIFRA clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human health
and the environment from the pesticide registration process. For example, an estimated $1.8
billion in termite damage is avoided each year through the availability of effective termiticides.88
While some effective termiticides have been removed from the market due to safety concerns,
EPA continues to work with industry to register safe alternatives that meet or exceed all current
safety standards and offer a high level of protection in accordance with the latest science.
Section 3 of FIFRA also authorizes EPA to register products that are identical or substantially
similar to already-registered products. The entry of these new products, also known as
"generics," into the market can cause price reductions resulting from new competition and
87 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/regulating/laws.htm
88 U.S. Census Bureau data (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/house.html); University of Georgia Entomology Dept.
(http://www.ent.uga.edu/pubs.htm'l: National Pest Management Association
(www.pestworld.org/Database/Article.asp? ArticleID=34&UserType).
438
-------
broader access to products. These price declines generate competition that provides benefits to
farmers and consumers.
The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship program's (PESP) efforts to increase adoption of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools has led to a substantial reduction in pest control
costs and a 90 percent reduction in both pesticide applications and pest problems in participating
schools.89 This model is based on a case study in Monroe County, Indiana which achieved a 92
percent reduction in pesticide use, enabling them to direct their cost savings to hire a district-
wide coordinator to oversee pest management in the schools. As a result of this achievement,
Monroe County was awarded the Indiana Governor's Award for Pollution Prevention. The
Monroe County IPM Program has now evolved into the Monroe School IPM Model. By using
this model, the emphasis is placed on minimizing the use of broad spectrum chemicals and on
maximizing the use of sanitation, biological controls, and selective methods of application.90
This "Monroe Model" serves as an example of how to implement IPM in school districts across
the country.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's statutory and regulatory functions for the pesticides program include registration, product
reregi strati on, registration review implementation, risk reduction implementation, rulemaking
and program management. During FY 2011, EPA will review and register new pesticides, new
uses for existing pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with FIFRA and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) standards as well as Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA) timeframes. Many of these actions will be for reduced-risk
pesticides which, once registered and used by consumers, will increase benefits to society.
Working together with the affected user communities through PESP and the Strategic
Agricultural Initiative, the Agency plans to accelerate the adoption of these lower-risk products.
Similarly, the Agency will continue its worksharing efforts with its international partners.
Through these collaborative activities and resulting international registrations, international trade
barriers will be reduced, enabling domestic users to more readily adopt these newer pesticides
into their crop protection programs and reduce the costs of registration through work sharing.
The Section 18 program provides exemptions to growers for use of pesticides that are not
registered for their crops during emergency situations. The economic benefit of the Section 18
program to growers is the avoidance of potential losses incurred in the absence of pesticides
exempted under FIFRA's emergency exemption provisions.
EPA will continue to conduct pre-market evaluations of efficacy data for public health claims
and ensure that the products will work for their intended purposes. Through the Antimicrobial
89 Lame, M. L., 2008 "Assessment and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Schools: Practical Implementation,"
Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban Entomology and Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban
Entomology; Lame, April 5, 2008, "Measuring the Impacts of Implementing IPM programs in Schools," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture's 5th National IPM Symposium Paper Presentation, St. Louis, MO. D. H.
Gouge, M. L. Lame, and J. L. Snyder, 2006, "Use of an Implementation Model and Diffusion Process for Establishing Integrated
Pest Management in Arizona Schools," American Entomologist 52:3, referred.
90 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm/
439
-------
Testing Program, the Agency will continue to conduct post-market surveillance to monitor the
efficacy of hospital disinfectants.
EPA will strengthen, in support of the Promoting Healthy Communities initiative, efforts crucial
to reducing the risks children face from pesticide use in the school environment through
additional contracts, grants, and partnerships. Additional focus will be directed toward easily
implemented IPM strategies to reduce sources of food, water, and shelter for pests in school
buildings and on school grounds.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduced cost per acres
using reduced risk
management practices
compared to the grant
and/or contract funds
on environmental
stewardship.
FY 2009
Target
4%,
($2.52)
FY 2009
Actual
4 ($2.52)
FY 2010
Target
6%
($2.47)
FY2011
Target
10%
($2.37)
Units
Reduc.
($/acre)
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Billions of dollars in
crop loss avoided by
ensuring that effective
pesticides are available
to address pest
infestations.
FY 2009
Target
$1.5 B
FY 2009
Actual
$1.5 B
FY 2010
Target
$1.5 B
FY2011
Target
$1.5 B
Units
Loss
Avoided
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of dollars in
termite structural
damage avoided
annually by ensuring
safe and effective
pesticides are
registered/re-registered
and available for
termite treatment.
FY 2009
Target
$900 M
FY 2009
Actual
$900 M
FY 2010
Target
$900 M
FY2011
Target
$900 M
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Maintain timeliness of
Section 1 8 Emergency
Exemption Decisions
FY 2009
Target
45
FY 2009
Actual
40
FY 2010
Target
45
FY2011
Target
45
Units
Days
440
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$324.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$24.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and teleconferencing.
• (+$283.0) This increase for Integrated Pest Management in schools through additional
contract, grants, and partnerships in support of the Promoting Healthy Communities
initiative.
• (+$441.0 / +3.5 FTE) This increase includes payroll resources for three new Regional
FTEs and .5 additional HQ FTE. This also reflects EPA's workforce management
strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Additional resources will support Integrated Pest Management in schools as part of the
Promoting Healthy Communities initiative.
• (-$13.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality Protection Act;
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
441
-------
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,084.4
$2,084.4
8.9
FY2010
Enacted
$1,840.0
$1,840.0
6.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,850.0
$1,850.0
6.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$10.0
$10.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Science Policy and Biotechnology program provides scientific and policy expertise,
coordinates EPA interagency and international efforts, and facilitates information sharing related
to core science policy issues concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals. Biotechnology is
illustrative of the work encompassed by this program. Many offices within EPA regularly deal
with biotechnology issues, and the coordination among affected offices allows for coherent and
consistent scientific policy from a broad Agency perspective. The Biotechnology Team assists
in formulating EPA and United States positions on biotechnology issues, including
representation on United States delegations to international meetings. Such international activity
is coordinated with the Department of State. In addition, independent science review is provided
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA
SAP), a scientific peer-review mechanism.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated
with plant-incorporated protectants based on plant viral coat proteins. EPA also will, in
conjunction with an interagency workgroup, continue to maintain and further develop the U.S.
Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Web site. The site focuses on the laws and
regulations governing agricultural products of modern biotechnology and includes a searchable
database of genetically engineered plants crop that have completed review for use in the United
States."
91
In addition, a number of international activities will continue to be supported by EPA. Examples
include representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's
Working Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and the Task
Force on the Safety of Food and Feed.
The SAP, operating under the rules and regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, will
continue to serve as the primary external independent scientific peer review mechanism for
http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
442
-------
EPA's pesticide programs and pesticide-related issues. Scientific peer review is a critical
component of EPA's use of the best available science.
Specific topics to be placed on the SAP agenda are typically confirmed a few months in advance
of each session and usually include difficult, new or controversial scientific issues identified in
the course of EPA's pesticide program activities. Notice of the FIFRA SAP meetings are
published in the Federal Register. In FY 2011, topics may include issues related to
biotechnology, chemical-specific risk assessments, nanotechnology, and endocrine disrupters,
among others.
Performance Targets:
Currently there are no performance measures specific to this Program Project. Work under this
program supports the Chemical and Pesticide Risks objective. Supported programs include the
registration of new pesticides and review of existing pesticides. The work in the Science Policy
& Biotechnology program also supports efforts related to toxic substances, specifically, the
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program. In addition, science policy and biotechnology
activities assist in meeting targets for measures under other programs such as Endocrine
Disruptors through the conduct of the FIFRA SAP meetings and letter reviews.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$30.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$20.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality
Protection Act; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
443
-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
444
-------
RCRA: Waste Management
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$67,198.4
$67,198.4
392.6
FY2010
Enacted
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
397.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$67,911.0
$67,911.0
382.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($931.0)
($931.0)
-14.6
Program Project Description:
The Waste Management program's primary focus is to provide national policy direction
concerning the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in order to reduce the amount
of waste generated; to improve the recovery and conservation of materials by focusing on a
hierarchy of waste management options that advocate reduction, reuse, and recycling; and to
ensure that wastes which cannot be safely reused or recycled are treated and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner. This program strives to prevent releases to the environment
from both non-hazardous and hazardous waste management facilities, reduce emissions from
hazardous waste combustion, and manage waste in more environmentally beneficial and cost-
effective ways.
The Waste Management program continues to evolve to address the challenges of the 21st
century, such as new waste streams from new industrial processes, and learning from
technological advances in the waste management arena. There is a continued focus on safe
disposal practices, the conservation of resources, and regulatory and other reform efforts to
strengthen waste management and improve the efficiency of the program. EPA actively
participates in waste management and resource conservation efforts internationally.
Through the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the program works with industry, states,
tribes, local governments and environmental groups to explore new ways to reduce materials and
energy use by promoting product and process redesign and increased materials and energy
recovery from materials otherwise requiring disposal. Thus, EPA and its partners maintain the
critical health and environmental protections provided by the base "cradle to grave" waste
management system envisioned by RCRA.92
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to assist states in putting in place permits, permit renewals, or
other approved controls at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA also
will meet its annual target of implementing initial approved controls or updated controls at 100
RCRA hazardous waste management facilities. In addition to meeting these goals, the program
• Refer to http://www.epa. gov/rcc/.
445
-------
is responsible for the continued maintenance of the regulatory controls at about 10,000 process
units (such as incinerators, landfills and storage tanks) at facilities in the permitting baseline.
93
The Agency will continue its high priority work on encouraging proper management of coal
combustion residuals. EPA will propose regulations for coal combustion residuals aimed at
increasing protection of human health and the environment. EPA will continue to work with
interested parties to promote use of the voluntary "Guide for Industrial Waste Management,"94
which provides facility managers, state and Tribal regulators, and the public with
recommendations and tools to better address the management of land-disposed non-hazardous
industrial waste.
The Waste Management program also will continue efforts to improve the implementation of the
RCRA financial assurance program in order to ensure that owners and operators of hazardous
waste facilities and reclamation facilities operating under the definition of solid waste exclusion
provide proof of their ability to pay for the cleanup, closure, and post-closure care of their
facilities.
The Agency will continue to develop a proposed rule that will address solvent-contaminated
industrial wipes under Subtitle C of RCRA. In FY 2011, based on the risk analysis and review
of public comments, the Agency will develop a final rule. The Agency is committed to ensuring
that the rulemaking is based on sound science and protective of human health and the
environment.
The Agency will continue its efforts in FY 2011 to ensure safe combustion of both hazardous
and solid waste. The Agency also will continue its efforts to promote the recycling of hazardous
secondary materials, where it can be done safely. Increased environmentally sound recycling of
hazardous secondary materials is an important part of moving toward sustainable industrial
production by returning recoverable commodities to the economy, minimizing wasteful disposal
of these valuable materials, and minimizing additional raw materials extraction.
Another important area of reform in FY 2011 will be the continuation of efforts to make the
hazardous waste program more cost-effective and easy-to-use for the more than 100 thousand
generators of hazardous waste. EPA will prepare and issue guidance materials on issues raised
by the regulated community and by those living near solid and hazardous waste facilities. If
determined necessary, EPA will propose regulatory changes to improve the program.
During FY 2011, the Waste Management program will continue working with the Department of
Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security to
prepare for possible terrorist or natural disaster events and threats to the food chain. EPA will
work to maintain information on technologies and tools for use in decontamination/disposal
operations related to terrorist events, natural disasters, or other disease outbreaks.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to issue Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) disposal
approvals and implement the PCB cleanup program. EPA will work with the U.S. Navy to
The permitting baseline universe currently has 2,446 facilities with approximately 10,000 process unit groups.
94 http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm
446
-------
address the reefing of ships and will work with the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) as
it safely dismantles its fleet of obsolete ships which contain equipment using PCBs, asbestos, and
other materials. In addition, the Agency will work with the Department of Defense to oversee
the disposal of PCBs in nerve agent rockets.
The Agency also will increase its support of PCB remediation activities in the Regional offices,
in conjunction with EPA's cross-program initiative for Healthy Communities. These resources
will promote safe handling and management of PCB-containing caulk in schools and build
necessary regional technical support and outreach to effectively implement site-specific cleanup
and disposal plans.
Also, with new funding provided for the Healthy Communities initiative, EPA will continue to
work with its Regional, state and Tribal partners to promote waste reduction and reuse and
enhance recycling efforts in communities by emphasizing lifecycle-based materials management
approaches. The Agency will investigate product stewardship approaches which may enable
sustainable mechanisms for municipal collection and recycling programs. Efforts will also
include building upon EPA's efforts working with Feed People - Not Landfills
(http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-donate.htm) which encourages
donation of excess food to community food banks instead of landfilling and also promoting the
composting of waste-food which can be used to sustain community gardens, particularly in urban
areas. In addition, there are existing activities and an ever-growing interest in green construction
(e.g. state and local government, industry, Federal Agencies-especially Department of Defense).
A materials management approach to construction/deconstruction recycling also can have a
direct benefit to communities by providing lower-cost building materials, reducing inner city
blight, and increasing resource conservation. The Agency has developed several short and long
term goals and will work towards implementing this Constructon/Deconstruction pilot in 2011.
Providing grant funds, training, and technical assistance to tribes and Tribal organizations for the
purpose of addressing solid and hazardous waste problems and reducing the risk of exposure to
improper disposal of solid and hazardous waste also is a priority in FY 2011. While many of the
572 federally recognized tribes have waste management plans, 63 of those have met EPA's
internal criteria for having an integrated waste management plan as of FY 2008. During FY
2011, EPA will increase the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan
by 22. In addition, EPA will increase the number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps
in Indian country or on other Tribal lands by 22. For FY 2011, the focus of the program will be
on developing training and technical assistance tools for tribes to develop sustainable waste
management programs to meet these goals.
In FY 2011, EPA plans to scale back headquarters resources for voluntary programs including
WasteWise, Green Highways, and Pay-As-You-Throw. These programs will continue to receive
additional support from the RCRA Waste Minimization and Recycling program.
As part of an evaluation of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants program, EPA revised the
baseline efficiency measure to 3.6 facilities with new or updated controls per million dollars of
program cost (a total of 2,484 facilities and $689.7 million in costs). Those costs include
estimates of the permitting costs of the regulated entities plus appropriated dollars for the
447
-------
program, based on a three year rolling average. The 2010 target was 3.72 facilities per million
dollars of program cost, and the FY 2011 target is 3.75 facilities per million dollars of program
cost.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of hazardous
waste facilities with
new or updated
controls.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
115
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Facilities
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of facilities
with new or updated
controls per million
dollars of program
cost.
FY 2009
Target
3.68
FY 2009
Actual
3.75
FY 2010
Target
3.72
FY2011
Target
3.75
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,310.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$139.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$500.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well the needed internet capacity.
• (+$764.0/ +2.0 FTE) This increase will support the Agency's Healthy Communities
initiative. These resources, including 2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $278.0, will meet
emerging needs for PCB cleanup and disposal of PCB-containing caulk in schools at the
Regional level.
• (+$1,000.07 +3.0 FTE) This increase will support EPA's Healthy Communities initiative
to promote reducing, reusing, and recycling waste for sustainable communities. These
resources, including 3.0 FTE and associated payroll of $417.0, will meet emerging needs
for lifecycle-based materials management approaches at the headquarters level, including
expansion of work with EPA's Feed People - Not Landfills program which encourages
donation of excess food to community food banks.
448
-------
• (-$10.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$75.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and Ecosystems
program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for
aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this
database in the past.
• (-$4,281.07 -19.6 FTE) This change, including 19.6 FTE and associated payroll of
$2,653.0, reflects a decrease in resources available to support several existing efforts
aimed at promoting the reduction, reuse, and recycling of municipal solid waste and
industrial materials at the headquarters level.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001, as amended; RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA, Section 6, Public Law 94-496, 15 U.S.C. 2605; Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
449
-------
RCRA: Corrective Action
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$38,451.0
$38,451.0
236.9
FY2010
Enacted
$40,029.0
$40,029.0
246.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$40,003.0
$40,003.0
244.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($26.0)
($26.0)
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to implement a
hazardous waste management program for the purpose of controlling the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. An important element of
this program is the requirement that facilities managing hazardous waste clean up past releases.
This program, which is largely implemented by authorized states, is known as the Corrective
Action program. Although the states95 are the primary implementers of the Corrective Action
program, EPA is the lead regulator at a significant number of facilities undergoing corrective
actions across the country, in addition to directly implementing the program in the states of Iowa
and Alaska. Key program implementation activities include: development of technical and
program implementation regulations, policies and guidance, and conducting corrective action
activities including assessments, investigations, stabilization measures, remedy selection, remedy
construction/implementation, and technical support and oversight for state-led activities.96
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to work in partnership with the states to coordinate
cleanup program goals and direction. EPA and the states will continue to develop and
implement approaches for selecting and constructing final remedies at operating facilities that are
protective as long as the facility remains active and that will ensure protective controls are in
place if the use changes in the future.
Ensuring sustainable future uses for RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in remedy
selections and in the construction of those remedies. This is consistent with EPA's emphasis on
land revitalization. The Agency will continue to present training that focuses on selecting and
completing final remedies to Regional and state RCRA Corrective Action staff.
95 This includes both those states authorized for corrective action and those not authorized for corrective action but contribute
through work sharing agreements with their EPA Regional Offices.
96 For more information please refer to http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.
450
-------
In addition, EPA will ensure that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and PCB remediation
sites are cleaned up. Specific activities include advising the regulated community on PCB
remediation and reviewing and acting on disposal applications for PCB remediation waste.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work toward the calendar year 2020 goal of constructing final
remedies at 95 percent of all facilities. As part of overall efforts toward that goal, first outlined
in the EPA FY 2006 - FY 2011 Strategic Plan, EPA and states will control human exposures to
toxins at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities and control the migration of contaminated
groundwater at a minimum of 95 percent of facilities by 2020. These long-term goals have been
set against the 2020 Corrective Action Universe, a baseline which EPA finalized in May 2007,
which includes 3,746 facilities requiring corrective action. In FY 2009, the annual targets for
RCRA Corrective Action were revised to align with this newly assessed baseline. In FY 2011,
the Agency will be working with states to continue developing and implementing program
improvements in order to meet the ambitious 2020 goal.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent increase of
final remedy
components
constructed at RCRA
corrective action
facilities per federal,
state, and private sector
dollars per year.
FY 2009
Target
3
FY 2009
Actual
39.6
FY 2010
Target
3
FY2011
Target
3
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
of RCRA facilities
with final remedies
constructed.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
35
FY2011
Target
38
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
of RCRA facilities
with human exposures
to toxins under control.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
69
FY2011
Target
72
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
of RCRA facilities
with migration of
contaminated
groundwater under
control.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
61
FY2011
Target
64
Units
Percent
451
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$942.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$813.07 -2.0 FTE) This reduces regional oversight and technical assistance to states in
support of the RCRA corrective action program. The reduced resources include 2.0 FTE
and associated payroll of $270.0.
• (-$91.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$64.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001 as amended; RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA, Section 6, Public Law 94-469, 15 U.S.C. 2605; Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
452
-------
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,680.9
$13,680.9
85.3
FY2010
Enacted
$14,379.0
$14,379.0
82.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,822.0
$14,822.0
82.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$443.0
$443.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to promote reductions in the
amount of waste generated and to improve recovery and conservation of materials through
reducing, reusing, and recycling. In support of this goal, EPA has been working through its
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) programs to build partnerships with government
agencies97, businesses, and nonprofits to encourage recycling and waste prevention, and leverage
resources to improve energy conservation.98
Materials management considers the human health and environmental impacts associated with
the full life cycle of materials - from the amount of raw materials extraction, through
transportation, processing, manufacturing, use, recycling, and disposal. By considering the
impacts throughout the entire life cycle instead of just the resulting waste, materials management
provides a platform for choosing policies, programs, and practices that carefully consider the
effect on the amounts and types of materials used and the full system impacts of those choices.
Recycled materials are a readily-available resource that can reduce the need for energy-intensive
extraction, transportation and manufacturing processes using virgin materials. The climate
benefits of waste prevention and recycling have been well established and existing technologies
are available to realize these benefits.
99
Through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP)100, which is also funded
under this program, EPA promotes waste minimization activities that diminish priority chemicals
as they affect human health and the environment. This approach involves linking chemicals to
waste streams and seeks to reduce not only the volume of wastes, but also the toxicity of wastes.
A goal of reducing both the volume and toxicity of chemicals in wastes also will lead to safer
97 Federal, state, local, and Tribal agencies.
98 http://www.epa.gov/rcc/.
EPA 2009. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management Practices,
http://www.epa. go v/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf
100 http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/npep/.
99
453
-------
chemical substitutions and processes upstream and eliminate occupational exposures to the
priority chemicals.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA has identified four national priorities or focus areas for the RCC: municipal solid waste;
green initiatives: electronics/green buildings; industrial materials use/reuse; and reduction of
priority chemicals.
Municipal Solid Waste
EPA will continue to motivate and provide leadership to industry, government agencies, public
interest groups, and citizens to reduce, reuse, and recycle municipal wastes. In calendar year
2008, the United States recycled 83 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW), roughly one
third of the country's total.101 As a result, the United States avoided generation of 182 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E), which is comparable to avoiding the
emissions from 33 million passenger cars.102
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to lead efforts focused on three large-volume material categories
from municipal/commercial sources with the greatest opportunity for recycling: (1) paper; (2)
organics; and (3) packaging and containers. These materials represent 60 to 70 percent of the
current municipal solid waste stream and are key to increasing recycling. Focusing on these
materials can achieve the reductions of GHG and increased energy savings that are attainable
through waste reduction and recycling.
As part of the ongoing Waste Wise campaign, EPA will continue to provide enhanced tools to
help communities reduce waste, increase recycling, and promote alliances between businesses
and communities that can advance waste prevention and recycling. In FY 2011, Waste Wise
partners will be able to use the new WasteWise reporting system that will allow partners to track
waste volumes and measure and report progress on their internal waste reduction activities.
EPA will promote the Benefit Evaluation Tool (BET) for participating cities to use in evaluating
their individual economic and environmental savings from adopting the Pay-as-You-Throw
(PAYT) program. PAYT creates a direct economic incentive for citizens to significantly reduce
wastes and increase recycling. EPA will provide technical assistance to state and local elected
officials from at least five large cities choosing to implement the Save Money and Reduce Trash
(SMART) program as part of the American Big City (ABC) campaign.
101 http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf.
102 www.epa.gov/warm - The Waste Reduction Model (WARM) calculates and totals GHG emissions of baseline and alternative
waste management practices - source reduction, recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates
emission in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units
(million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste (MSW). The WARM model is
based on a lifecycle approach, which reflects emissions and avoided emissions upstream and downstream from the point of use.
As such, the emission factors provided in these tools provide an account of the net benefit of these actions to the environment.
454
-------
Green Initiatives-Electronics/Green Buildings
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to address the nation's growing electronics waste stream through
partnerships with private and public entities including Plug-In To eCycling, the Federal
Electronics Challenge (FEC), and Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
Through Plug-In, EPA has established partnerships with 25 major electronic businesses. Those
partners report that more than 200 million pounds of consumer electronics have been collected
and reused or recycled safely. Building on current Plug-In to eCycling activities, EPA will work
to highlight the importance of recycling electronics and continue to motivate consumers to utilize
electronics collection opportunities.
A key component of the FEC program is improving the manner in which Federal agencies
manage their used electronic equipment. By FY 2011, 100 percent of non-reusable electronic
equipment disposed of annually by FEC Partner facilities will be recycled using environmentally
sound management, as defined by the Responsible Recycling (R2) Practices.103
Under the RCC, EPA will continue to support implementation of its green building strategy and
provide support to the Green Building Workgroup and Management Steering Committee,
including the task groups for guiding principles, research, Federal facilities metrics, and greening
existing homes and buildings. EPA also will continue working to improve its effectiveness in
influencing marketplace (e.g., LEED) definitions of "green building."
Industrial Materials Use/Reuse
Under the RCC, EPA will continue to pursue collaborative efforts to increase the safe use and
recycling of industrial materials and byproducts, with resultant benefits of decreased disposal
costs, energy savings, and reduced GHG emissions. For every ton of coal fly ash that is used in
place of Portland cement, nearly a ton of CC>2 emissions are avoided. The RCC Industrial
Materials Recycling effort primarily focuses on three large industrial non-hazardous waste
streams: (1) coal combustion products; (2) construction and demolition debris; and (3) foundry
sand.
In FY 2011, the program will continue its voluntary Coal Combustion Partnership Program
(C2P2) to increase the beneficial use of fly ash, for example, in concrete. The Agency will
continue to implement its relationship with the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
National Ready Mix Concrete Association, and other key partners of C2P2 in order to provide
outreach, technical information, and assistance to increase the use of coal combustion products.
EPA will use C2P2 as a collaborative model to foster the safe, beneficial use of other industrial
non-hazardous waste streams, such as foundry sands and construction and demolition debris.
Recognizing that Clean Air Act regulations will result in increased generation of flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) materials, EPA and its partners will work to explore the expanded use of
FGD gypsum as a soil amendment. Ongoing and future studies will be used to assist the public
in making beneficial use decisions regarding FGD gypsum.
103 http://www.epa.gOV/osw//conserve/materials/ecvcling/r2practices.htm.
455
-------
EPA also will continue working with Federal, state, Tribal and private sector outreach programs
to promote environmentally safe and sound reuse and recycling of construction and demolition
(C&D) debris, which is a larger waste stream than MSW. EPA will work with states and the
private sector, including the Associated General Contractors of America, to seek improvements
in the recycling of C&D materials and the tracking of recycling activities.
Priority and Toxic Chemicals Reduction
In FY 2011, NPEP will continue to reduce priority chemicals which are persistent, bio-
accumulative, and highly toxic. As of January 2010, the NPEP program has obtained industry
commitments to reduce 3 million pounds of priority chemicals through FY 2014.
In FY 2011, EPA's School Chemicals Cleanout Campaign Program (SC3) will continue its work
to minimize chemical hazards associated with poor chemical management in K-12 schools. The
Agency will do this by working with teachers' associations and pre-service teaching institutions
to develop chemical management curricula. EPA will continue to promote innovation by
expanding the network of industry partners and community organizations such as emergency
services who have volunteered to assist schools in safely removing chemicals and helping
schools develop effective measures to prevent chemical management problems before they can
occur.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Billions of pounds of
municipal solid waste
reduced, reused, or
recycled.
FY 2009
Target
19.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/7010
FY 2010
Target
20.5
FY2011
Target
21
Units
Billion
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Increase in percentage
of coal combustion ash
that is used instead of
disposed.
FY 2009
Target
1.8
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1.4
FY2011
Target
1.4
Units
Percentage
Increase
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of closed,
cleaned up, or
upgraded open dumps
in Indian Country or on
other tribal lands.
FY 2009
Target
27
FY 2009
Actual
129
FY 2010
Target
22
FY2011
Target
22
Units
Open Dumps
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of tribes
covered by an
FY 2009
Target
16
FY 2009
Actual
31
FY 2010
Target
23
FY2011
Target
22
Units
Tribes
456
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
integrated solid waste
management plan.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Quantity of priority
chemicals reduced
from all phases of the
manufacturing
lifecycle through
source reduction and/or
recycling.
FY 2009
Target
1
FY 2009
Actual
7.05
FY 2010
Target
0.75
FY2011
Target
0.75
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of pounds of
priority chemicals
reduced from the
environment per
federal government
costs.
FY 2009
Target
0.429
FY 2009
Actual
3.35
FY 2010
Target
0.435
FY2011
Target
0.442
Units
Pounds/
Dollar
In FY 2011, EPA will focus on resource conservation through efficient materials management
from small businesses at the local level. In addition, the program will continue to recognize the
co-benefit decreases in GHG emissions from efficient materials management. In calendar year
2008, under the RCC programs (WasteWise and C2P2), EPA and its partners estimated GHG
reductions of 34.6 MMTCO2E, equal to the annual emissions from 6.6 million cars, and savings
of 270 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy.104
EPA has developed an efficiency measure that will show, over time, the total reduction of
priority chemicals from products and wastes per Federal dollar spent. Federal spending consists
of program implementation costs including Federal RCRA program extramural dollars and FTE.
Industry costs are assumed to be neutral. EPA assumes that costs incurred by these partners are
offset by cost saving from the program, resulting in a net cost neutral program. The efficiency
measure targets are an annual increase of 1.5 percent, in pounds of priority chemicals reduced
from the environment per Federal dollar spent. The target in FY 2010 was 0.435 pounds per
dollar, and the FY 2011 target is 0.442 pounds per dollar.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$453.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
1 Equivalent to the energy consumption of over 3 million households.
457
-------
• (+$8.0) This reflects a slight increase in general expenses and supporting the program IT
and telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001 as amended; RCRA of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq. Veterans Administration (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988);
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101).
458
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
459
-------
Endocrine Disruptors
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$10,937.0
$10,937.0
14.8
FY2010
Enacted
$8, 625.0
$8,625.0
11.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$8,601.0
$8,601.0
11.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($24.0)
($24.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) establishes policies and procedures for
implementing the endocrine effects screening authorities of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)105. The program develops and validates
scientific test methods from which tests will be selected and used for the routine, ongoing
evaluation of pesticides and other chemicals to determine their potential for adverse health or
environmental effects by interfering with normal endocrine system function (Tier 1) and to
characterize those effects (Tier2). The program issues Tier 1 Test Orders to pesticide registrants
and chemical companies, evaluates responses to Test Orders (e.g., waiver requests and submitted
data), and determines the extent to which Tier 2 Test Orders will be issued based on the results
of Tier 1 screening.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2011, the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) will fulfill several
milestones.
• Finalizing the validation of the Tier 2 assays;
• Prioritizing and selecting additional chemicals for Tier 1 screening;
• Issuing Tier 1 Test Orders for the selected chemicals based on publically-vetted policies
and procedures;
• Evaluating results of Tier 1 screening data submitted for pesticide chemicals; and
• Determining which pesticide chemicals that have completed Tier 1 screening will require
Tier 2 testing. These determinations will be based on criteria, to be published by
10/30/2010, that are developed using a process that allows for public input.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/.
In FY 2011, the EDSP will work to protect communities from harm from substances in the
environment which may adversely affect health through specific hormonal effects. Efforts
' http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/sdwa/
460
-------
include the validation of Tier 2 assays that will be used to confirm any chemical interactions with
the endocrine system observed using Tier 1 screens, and provide information that can be used in
risk assessment. The EDSP also will continue reviewing data received in response to the first set
of test orders issued to pesticide manufacturers. Chemicals that indicate the potential for
interaction with the endocrine system in Tier 1 will undergo further testing in Tier 2.
EPA's Office of Research and Development program is developing computer models and in
vitro, non-animal high throughput screening assays that can be used to rapidly prioritize
chemicals for Tier 1 screening across many chemical and endocrine systems. EPA also will
continue collaborations with international partners through the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), conserving EPA resources and promoting adoption of
internationally harmonized test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals. EPA
represents the U.S. as either the lead or a participant in OECD projects involving development of
computer-based and in vitro, non-animal prioritization methods, improvement of EDSP Tier 1
screening assays, and development and validation of Tier 2 assays. This includes a more
efficient and effective extended 1-generation Tier 2 assay to replace the routine use of the
mammalian two-generation assay, and multi-generation tests in fish, birds, and invertebrates, and
a partial life-cycle test in frogs.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Contract cost reduction
per study for assay
validation efforts in the
Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program.
FY 2009
Target
1
FY 2009
Actual
38
FY 2010
Target
1
FY2011
Target
1
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$51.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$50.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$24.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. This publically available
database supports the EDSP by maintaining data published in the scientific peer-reviewed
literature that is used with Tier 1 and Tier 2 data submitted to the Agency to determine if
a chemical has the potential to affect the endocrine systems of wildlife.
461
-------
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Prevention Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Clean Water Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food Quality Protection Act; Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act; the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know
Act; Safe Drinking Water Act.
462
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$48,269.9
$48,269.9
247.0
FY2010
Enacted
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
246.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
246.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$934.0
$934.0
0.5
Program Project Description:
This program spans the full range of EPA activities associated with screening, assessing and
reducing risks of new and existing chemicals. Key program efforts include:
• Reviewing and acting on 1,500 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5 notices,
including Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs), received annually to ensure that no
unreasonable risk is posed by new chemicals before they are introduced into U.S.
commerce.
• Assessing thousands of existing chemicals already in commerce before TSCA took
effect, and taking risk management actions as appropriate, including:
o Obtaining and managing data to support hazard assessment and risk management
actions for High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals (produced in volumes greater
than one million pounds per year), and processing the 2010 TSCA Inventory Update
(IUR) reports anticipated to be submitted in FY 2011 for approximately 7,000
existing chemicals produced in quantities greater than 25,000 pounds in 2010 and
making IUR data publically available more quickly than in past reporting cycles;
o Assessing the hazards and risks of High Production Volume (HPV) and other existing
chemicals; and, as appropriate, taking risk management action (including the use of
TSCA regulatory authority) to reduce human health and environmental risks posed by
existing chemicals identified as chemicals of concern.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
New Chemicals Program:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue preventing the entry into the U.S. market of chemicals that pose
unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. Each year, the PMN Review component
of EPA's New Chemicals program reviews and manages the potential risks from approximately
1,500 new chemicals, 40 products of biotechnology, and new chemical nanoscale materials, prior
to their entry into the marketplace.
463
-------
To measure performance under this program, in FY 2006, EPA adopted (with a FY 2004
baseline) a measure establishing a "zero tolerance" performance standard for the number of new
chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose an unreasonable risk to
workers, consumers, or the environment. The Agency has achieved the 100 percent goal in three
of four years that the measure has been tracked (FY 2004 to FY 2007), and has a 99.6 percent
success rate overall. The Agency recognizes that this measure does not involve systematic
sampling and testing of all PMN-reviewed chemicals that have entered U.S. commerce, but
believes nonetheless that it represents an efficient approach for using available information to
assess and improve the effectiveness of EPA's new chemicals risk screening tools and decision-
making processes. EPA continues to explore more robust options for tracking the performance
of the New Chemicals Program, and expects to propose additional GPRA measures in
subsequent fiscal years.
EPA will allocate $13.9 million to the New Chemicals Program in FY 2011.
For more information, see www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.
Existing Chemicals Program:
One of EPA's primary responsibilities under TSCA is to address unreasonable risks posed by
chemicals already in commerce before EPA began assessing new chemicals through the PMN
program in 1979. These chemicals are employed by U.S. industries to produce widely used
items, including consumer products such as cleansers, paints, plastics, and fuels as well as
industrial solvents and additives, leading to substantial public and occupational exposure. While
these chemicals play an important role in the public's everyday lives, some may adversely affect
human health and the environment and may need to be regulated under TSCA to address
unreasonable health and safety risks.
Building on the $8 million investment Congress enacted in FY 2010 to enhance the existing
chemicals program and initiate substantial risk management actions on identified chemicals of
concern, in FY 2011 EPA will focus on:
• Obtaining Needed Data: EPA will continue obtaining data needed to assess the safety of
FIPV chemicals, including critical chemical hazard and fate data defined by the
internationally recognized Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) and production and
use data obtained through TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR). In FY 2011, EPA
will obtain needed SIDS data for additional HPV chemicals by publishing TSCA Section
4 test rules on chemicals that lack sponsors or for which sponsors failed to submit
complete data, and by utilizing other mechanisms. With respect to obtaining production
and use data, the Agency expects in FY 2011 to process submission of 2010 IUR data
reports for approximately 6,000 to 7,000 HPV and Moderate Production Volume (MPV)
chemicals (produced in volumes of greater than 25 thousand pounds per year). EPA will
make these IUR data publicly available more quickly than in past reporting cycles. In
early 2010, EPA expects to propose modifications to the IUR rule under TSCA Section 8
to make the reporting of chemical use information more transparent, more current, and
more useful to the public.
464
-------
The Agency is also considering a proposed rule under TSCA Section 4 to require
companies to test several manufactured nanoscale materials for health and environmental
effects. Please see "Assessing Chemicals for Hazard and Risk" and "Risk Management,"
below, for additional information on EPA's nanoscale materials efforts. Finally, EPA is
initiating steps in FY 2010 that will continue in FY 2011 to improve the management of
Confidential Business Information (CBI) so that the communication of chemical data to
the public can be enhanced.
EPA will allocate $11.1 million to obtain data in FY 2011.
Assessing Chemicals for Hazards and Risks: EPA will continue using obtained and
available data to assess the safety of existing chemicals, including developing screening-
level hazard characterizations for HPV chemicals. EPA has developed and publicly
posted hazard characterizations for 1,095 HPV chemicals through the end of FY 2009,
will develop hazard characterizations for an additional 230 HPV chemicals in FY 2010
and for a proposed additional set of approximately 300 HPV chemicals in FY 2011 (as
determined by numbers of chemicals contained within the categories reviewed). This
includes the results of EPA's continuing partnership with the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development to produce hazard characterizations in the international
arena and leverage similar work undertaken by other countries as a result.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue biodegradation testing including the testing of
fluoropolymer and fluorotelomer products to determine whether they contain
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and are able to release PFOA as they degrade. Please
see "Risk Management," below, for additional information on EPA's PFOA efforts.
In FY 2011, EPA will analyze the data it has received through its Nanoscale Materials
program and Test Rules to understand which nanoscale materials are produced, in what
quantities, and what other risk-related data are available. EPA will use this information
to understand whether certain nanoscale materials may present risks to human health and
the environment and warrant further assessment, testing or other action. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/. Please see "Risk Management," below,
for additional information on EPA's nanoscale materials efforts.
EPA also is assessing chemical hazards through the development of values for Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). Emergency planners and first responders use
AEGLs to prepare for and deal with chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure
levels. Following September 11, 2001, a series of investments in the Homeland Security:
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery chemical program provided resources to support
accelerated development of proposed AEGL values. In FY 2011, the emphasis will be on
finalizing already proposed AEGL values. By the close of FY 2011, EPA expects to
have published final values for at least 70 chemicals, including 10 to 20 additional final
values expected to be completed in FY 2011. Work to develop proposed values should
essentially be finished by the end of FY 2010. An additional 30 chemicals are under
consideration for addition to the list of chemicals targeted for AEGLs development, but a
decision on whether to add them has not yet been made. Any newly proposed values will
465
-------
be raised to interim status within one year of being proposed. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.
EPA will allocate $11.7 million to assess chemicals in FY 2011.
Managing Chemical Risks: EPA plans to initiate or continue risk management actions in
FY 2010 and FY 2011 to reduce human health and environmental risks posed by a
number of previously and newly identified priority existing chemicals using TSCA
regulatory authorities and other strategies. The Agency commenced several regulatory
actions in FY 2010 to address priority chemicals posing known risks, and will continue
those actions in FY 2011, including:
o Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA): EPA will continue to evaluate and implement
PFOA risk management actions. The Agency launched a global PFOA
stewardship program in January 2006 for U.S. fluoropolymer and telomer
manufacturers with eight major manufacturers of these chemicals participating.
Participating companies have committed to reduce PFOA emissions and product
content by 95 percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA
emissions and product content no later than 2015. EPA received the third
progress reports from companies participating in the PFOA stewardship program
in October 2009. Continued progress towards these goals is expected in FY 2011.
The Agency will receive annual updates through 2015. For more information,
visit www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa.
o Nanoscale materials: EPA is considering rulemaking under Section 5(a)(2) of
TSCA to require protective measures to limit exposure or otherwise mitigate the
potential unreasonable risk presented by two carbon nanotube chemical structures.
o Formaldehyde: EPA is considering rulemaking governing formaldehyde
emissions from pressed wood products. The Agency is pursuing this course of
action following review of a TSCA Section 21 citizens' petition, which requested
that EPA adopt nationally a California regulation to control formaldehyde
emissions from these wood products.
o Lead wheel weights: EPA is considering rulemaking under Section 6 of TSCA to
ban the use of lead weights in tires. The Agency is pursuing this course of action
following the granting of a TSCA Section 21 citizens' petition, which requested
that EPA prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of
lead wheel weights.
o Glymes: EPA is considering rulemaking under Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA to require
prior notification to the Agency of any new consumer use of monoglyme,
diglyme, and ethylglyme.
EPA, through its chemical action plans, is identifying risk management actions for
chemicals of concern, including potential regulatory actions for those listed under TSCA
466
-------
Section 5(b)(4). EPA plans to develop approximately twelve chemical action plans per
year. In addition to the action plans, EPA is also evaluating incoming Section 21
petitions and referrals from other government agencies. Criteria used to select initial
chemicals for action plan development are mentioned below. As announced on
September 29, 2009, prioritizing chemicals for future action plan development and risk
management action is a key component of the agency's chemical risk management effort,
and EPA intends to engage stakeholders and the public in this discussion.
For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf
Actions focusing on an initial set of four chemicals/chemical categories were identified in
December 2009 - phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). Chemicals are
selected for risk management action based on a number of criteria, including:
o chemicals identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic;
o high production volume chemicals;
o chemicals in consumer products;
o chemicals of concern for children's health;
o chemicals subject to review and potential action by other governments;
o chemicals found in human blood in biomonitoring programs; and
o chemicals in categories generally identified as being of potential concern in the
new chemicals program.
Risk management actions that may be implemented include:
o Section 6 authorities to prohibit or limit the manufacture, import, processing, use,
or distribution of chemicals;
o Section 5 authorities to issue significant new use rules restricting uses of existing
chemicals without submission of pre-manufacture notices;
o Section 5(b)(4) authorities to list chemicals that "may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health and the environment;"
o Referral/elevation to other EPA offices, or other Federal Agencies (e.g., TRI,
OSHA, CPSC) if a rule-making or other form of risk management action is
initiated because of our referral and not already undertaken; and,
o Stewardship activities including commitments from industry to adopt viable safer
alternatives, safer best practices identified, voluntary withdrawal of chemicals
and/or products from the market, stewardship programs to reduce emissions, and
voluntary consensus standards.
EPA has and will continue to work closely with other Federal agencies working on these
chemicals, such as FDA and CPSC.
EPA will allocate $18.9 million to undertaking risk management actions in FY 2011.
467
-------
For more information on EPA's efforts to assess and act on HPV and other existing chemicals,
see http ://www. epa. gov/oppt/chemtest/.
All of the work that is proposed to be accomplished in FY 2011 under the Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction program may be affected by pending Congressional action on TSCA. Various
proposals currently under consideration by Congress could change EPA's strategies and
activities to safeguard human health and the environment against risks posed by dangerous
chemicals.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Annual reduction in the
production adjusted
risk based score of
releases and transfers
of IUR chemicals from
manufacturing
facilities
FY 2009
Target
2.4
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011
FY 2010
Target
2.2
FY2011
Target
2
Units
% RSEI Rel
Risk
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduction in cost of
managing
PreManufacture Notice
(PMN) submissions
through the Focus
meeting as a
percentage of baseline
year cost
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
61
FY2011
Target
63
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Annual number of
hazard
characterizations
completed for HPV
chemicals
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
230
FY2011
Target
300
Units
Hazardous
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Annual number of
chemicals with final
values for Acute
Exposure Guideline
Levels (AEGL).
FY 2009
Target
6
FY 2009
Actual
4
FY 2010
Target
14
FY2011
Target
20
Units
Chemicals
468
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of new
chemicals or organisms
introduced into
commerce that do not
pose unreasonable
risks to workers,
consumers, or the
environment.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
EPA is using the measures described below as well as implementing the previously mentioned
toxics program enhancements to evaluate program performance.
The cumulative and annual reductions in the production-adjusted risk-based score releases and
transfers of chemicals are reported through Inventory Update Reporting (IUR). These measures
look at the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) score for a subset of approximately
250 IUR chemicals that are reported through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Data received
through 2006 indicate a 35.3 percent reduction in the RSEI score when compared to a 1998
baseline. The RSEI index is expected to decrease less and less over time and annual targets
decrease incrementally to address this trend. TRI data are subject to a two-year data lag, which
means these measures have a corresponding two year reporting delay. FY 2007 and FY 2008
performance results will be available for the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report.
The cumulative and annual measures tracking the number of chemicals with final values for
AEGLs supports the Homeland Security program area. In FY 2011, the program continues to
shift its emphasis to interim and final status AEGLs and will complete 20 final AEGL values
with no proposed values left to complete. The AEGL program shares resources with the
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Prevention and Response and Toxic Substances: Chemical
Risk Review and Reduction programs.
The cumulative and annual measures tracking the percent of new chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment, illustrate the effectiveness of EPA's new chemicals program as a gatekeeper. This
measure analyzes previously reviewed new chemicals with incoming TSCA 8(e) notices of
substantial risk. TSCA requires that chemical manufacturers, importers, processors and
distributors notify EPA within thirty days of new information on chemicals that may lead to a
conclusion of unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Information from
approximately thirty 8(e) notices each year is used to check the accuracy of New Chemicals
analytical tools and to make process improvements for future review of new chemicals.
In FY 2011, EPA will track the number of HPV chemicals with completed hazard
characterizations. These hazard characterizations summarize the adequacy of data received
through HPV Challenge, identify remaining data needs, and present hazard data in a concise and
uniform way. These hazard characterizations present EPA's perspective on data regarding
ecotoxicity, acute toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity,
environmental fate, and physical/chemical properties. EPA has completed hazard
469
-------
characterizations for 1,095 chemicals through 2009 and will target completion of hazard
characterizations for an additional 230 chemicals in 2010 and for 300 additional chemicals in
2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,003.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$73.0 / +0.5 FTE) This increase includes $73.OK in associated payroll and reflects
EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources.
FTE are reprogrammed from the lead program to optimize IT staff utilization.
• (-$52.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects efforts to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel conferencing.
• (-$14.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$76.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program, which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act.
470
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$19,958.8
$19,958.8
89.7
FY2010
Enacted
$18,050.0
$18,050.0
86.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,419.0
$15,419.0
77.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($2,631.0)
($2,631.0)
-9.4
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prevention (P2) Program is one of EPA's primary tools for promoting
sustainability and encouraging environmental stewardship by the Federal and state governments,
industry, communities, and individuals. The P2 Program has been producing energy efficiency
and fossil fuel reduction results, along with co-benefits in chemical risk management and
business cost savings, since the early 1990s. By helping businesses and entities prevent
pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve resources, and green the design of
processes, products, and technologies from a life cycle perspective, P2 approaches respond to the
Administrator's priorities for taking action on climate change through reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and reducing chemical risks. The P2 Program is augmented by a counterpart P2 grant
program in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.
The program accomplishes its mission through eight centers of results, including those described
below, as well as through the Regional Offices and the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
(P2Rx) program, which are described together as P2 technical assistance.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program
The goal of this program is for the Federal government to serve as a model to others for
environmental stewardship through incorporating environmental considerations into routine
purchasing decisions. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to provide leadership to implement EPP
efforts in partnership with other Federal agencies, notably to continue to implement, add new
federal partners, and measure the benefits of the Federal Electronics Challenge, a partnership
program that encourages federal facilities and agencies to purchase greener electronic products,
reduce their impacts during use, and manage obsolete electronics in an environmentally safe
way. EPP efforts will also continue to promote the use of the Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT), a procurement tool designed to help institutional purchasers compare
and select desktop computers, laptops, monitors, and other equipment based on environmental
attributes, including energy savings that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which are
471
-------
quantified106 through a peer-reviewed electronics environmental benefits calculator107. FY 2011
work on EPEAT will involve developing, through a consensus-based stakeholder process, new
standards for additional electronic products, including televisions, imaging equipment, mobile
devices and servers.
EPA will allocate $3.0 million to this work area in FY 2011.
See http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/about/about.htm for more information.
Green Suppliers Network
Through this program, EPA partners with large manufacturers to help small and medium-sized
suppliers identify opportunities to "lean and clean" their operations. These activities help
suppliers save money and reduce their environmental impacts. The Green Suppliers Network
will continue to partner with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and state pollution prevention programs to
deploy the program across the nation's largest manufacturing supply chains. In FY 2011, the
program will update the environmental component of "lean and clean" training modules used to
train states and MEP centers who are delivering the Green Suppliers Network reviews. In FY
2011, the Green Suppliers Network will continue to strengthen its results algorithm to support
the reporting of rigorous and defensible program results and will rely on private and social
Return on Investment estimations as incentives to drive the program forward.
The program will provide support to the Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) program, an
outgrowth of the Green Suppliers Network Program. E3 is a new Federal and local initiative that
provides large to small manufacturers with greenhouse gas assessments; technical advice and
support, with the goal of helping manufacturing plants become more energy efficient and cost-
effective, improving the economy by creating and retaining jobs, and reducing carbon emissions
by decreasing energy consumption. It serves as a model for collaboration among manufacturers,
local government and Federal resources to address energy and sustainability challenges, provide
valuable technical training and assessments, improve profitability and enable growth. E3
expands the GSN program to collaborate with the Department of Energy, the Small Business
Administration and the Department of Labor, in addition to the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) Program of the Department of Commerce. The E3 activities will evolve from
pilot projects conducted in Columbus, Ohio and San Antonio, Texas.
EPA will allocate $3.3 million to this work area in FY 2011. For more information on the Green
Suppliers Network, visit http://www.greensuppliers.gov/gsn/home.gsn. For information on the
E3 activity, visit www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/e3.html.
http://www.epeat.net/FastBenefits.aspx
107http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources^encalc.htm
472
-------
Green Chemistry
The Green Chemistry Program fosters the design and marketplace acceptance of chemicals and
chemical processes that reduce adverse environmental impacts as well as costs. In promoting the
reduction or elimination of hazardous chemicals and the generation of waste, Green Chemistry
also helps reduce workplace exposure to dangerous manufacturing and production processes and
the need for end-of-pipe controls. Green Chemistry has also shown results in achieving energy
savings and reducing greenhouse gases108. In FY 2011, Green Chemistry will continue to
administer the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, with its associated award ceremony, and
will focus on the development of environmentally preferable substitutes for existing chemicals of
concern (those currently in the marketplace and on the TSCA Inventory). In FY 2011, the
program will conduct communication and outreach through information postings on the Green
Chemistry website.
Green Chemistry will seek to leverage resources for the development of safer substitutes through
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPA's Research and Development research
strategies, such as influencing Federal grant solicitations for Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) and the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants. Green Chemistry also will pursue
the development of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with
chemical producers and trade associations to target Green Chemistry research on alternatives for
chemicals of concern.
EPA will allocate $1.5 million to this work area in FY 2011. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemi stry/.
Design for the Environment
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program works in partnership with a broad range of
stakeholders to reduce chemical risks to people and the environment by promoting the
development and assessment of safer alternatives. The program provides hazard information on
potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and assists companies in making product design
improvements that will help reduce risks. DfE convenes partners, including industry
representatives and environmental groups, to evaluate the human health and environmental
considerations, performance, and cost of traditional and alternative technologies, materials, and
processes. As incentives for participation and driving change, DfE offers unique technical tools,
methodologies, and expertise. This is especially important to small businesses that do not have
the broad range of scientific and technical expertise needed to conduct a hazard assessment.
EPA's DfE Program helped companies reduce the use of more than 460 million pounds of
chemicals of concern in 2009 alone109.
In FY 2011, DfE will continue collaborating with industry and non-governmental organizations
to reduce risk from chemicals. DfE's Safer Product Labeling Program differentiates products that
are safer for people and the environment by permitting the use of the DfE logo only on products
that meet stringent criteria and by providing chemical and toxicological information and
1 °8 http: //www.epa. gov/gcc/pubs/pgcc/technology .html#renewableResources
109 http://www.epa.gov/dfe/product_label_consumer.html#consumers
473
-------
suggesting safer substitutes. The program is quickly growing and currently applies to more than
1,600 different products. A related DfE effort, the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative
(SDSI), will provide incentives to companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through
the development of more concentrated detergents.
In FY 2011, DfE will grandfather or retire several partnerships that have produced significant
results, such as its work with the automotive refinishing industry and its life-cycle assessment
effort with the photovoltaic industries. The auto-refinishing project has provided best practices
and compliance assistance training to auto-refinishing shops and career/technical schools from
FY 2008 through FY 2010. By January 2011, auto-refinishing shops must be in full compliance
with a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for area sources
engaged in paint stripping and surface coating of motor vehicles and mobile equipment. DfE's
best practices for auto-refinishing have been adopted in this regulation, including use of spray
booths and prep stations with 98 percent efficiency filters, painter training, and spray technique
that reduces overspray and improves overall efficiency. In addition, DfE is working with EPA's
Green Building and Energy Star programs, other Federal agencies and industry to identify and
promote best practices to reduce exposures to diisocyanates and other chemicals during spray
application of polyurethane foam insulation, which is used to retrofit homes, schools and other
buildings with the goal of reducing energy consumption.
DfE is developing a life-cycle assessment of nanomaterials in lithium-ion batteries for hybrid
electric vehicles, and it is scheduled to be made final in FY 2011. The goal of this work is to
identify those materials and processes within a product's lifecycle which are likely to pose the
greatest impacts to public health and the environment. As nanotechnology is employed in
lithium-ion battery products, this effort also will promote nanotechnology innovations in
advanced batteries that will reduce overall environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas
emissions110.
DfE is experienced in leveraging the resource needs for lifecycle assessment work. In addition,
industry provides in-kind technical support and is responsible for furnishing accurate and
comprehensive information and undertaking needed analysis.
EPA will allocate $1.7 million to this work area in FY 2011. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/
Green Engineering
The Green Engineering Program (GE) will continue to provide leadership in promoting
environmentally sound approaches such as life-cycle assessment, risk-based tools and advanced
design techniques, and green chemistry in processes, systems and products as well as in
engineering education. In FY 2011, GE will continue partnerships with industries, states and
others to apply green engineering approaches to specific industrial projects. For example, GE is
collaborating with other EPA offices, other Federal agencies, academia, and industry to advance
the incorporation of green engineering approaches and tools in pharmaceutical processes with an
aim towards reducing their environmental impact. Among other benefits, these partnerships are
110 http://www.epa.gov/dfe/altemative_assessments.html#
474
-------
expected to help reduce pollution, save energy, and conserve water by achieving efficiencies in
solvent distillation and reducing the need for incineration.
In addition to in-kind technical support, EPA Regional offices and other Federal Agencies are
also requested to co-share project costs. GE also will consider the development of CRADAs
particularly with industry to formalize project co-sharing. The program also partners with the
Center for Sustainable Engineering (CSE), which was established via National Science
Foundation (NSF) funding, to further disseminate green engineering educational materials that
were developed through the GE Program. The GE Program will update the GE textbook in 2009
and 2010 for widespread notification of availability in 2011.
EPA will allocate $0.5 million to this work area in FY 2011. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH)
This voluntary program, formerly known as Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), with
more than 1,250 hospital partners, became an independent non-profit organization in calendar
year 2006, the first to do so in the history of EPA voluntary programs, significantly reducing
EPA's costs for administering the program. Under the PSH program, EPA will continue to
coordinate agency work that improves the environmental performance of the healthcare sector by
providing technical expertise and facilitating cooperative working relationships with other
programs such as Energy Star, Green Suppliers Network and EPEAT while the independent PSH
organization continues to provide outreach, education, and recognition programs. In its current
capacity, PSH is participating in EPA rulemaking workgroups in the area of pharmaceutical
waste management.
EPA will allocate $.16 million to this work area in FY 2011. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm.
Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance
As directed by the Pollution Prevention Act, the P2 program devotes considerable effort towards
assisting industry (primarily small and medium sized businesses), government, and the public in
implementing pollution prevention solutions to chemical risk and other environmental protection
challenges. In addition to the P2 grants to states and tribes and the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange Programs described under the companion Categorical Grants: Pollution
Prevention Program, resources are made available to a wide variety of applicants through Source
Reduction Assistance (SRA) grants, issued annually on a competitive basis through EPA's
Regional Offices. In FY 2011, EPA expects to award 20 to 30 grants, ranging between $10,000
and $100,000.
SRA grants support P2 solutions resulting in energy and water conservation, reduction of
greenhouse gases, and a wide variety of reductions in the use of hazardous materials and
generation of other pollutants. Projects include the Healthy Schools initiatives, toxics use
reduction training, home and business light bulb replacement, mining operation improvement,
475
-------
state agency staff training, safer health care delivery, groundwater protection, and greening
meetings, conferences, and buildings.
EPA will allocate approximately $4.9 million to this work area in FY 2011, which complements
the $4.9 million of P2 Categorical Grant resources.
Performance Targets
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Annual reductions of
Design for the
Environment (DfE)
chemicals of concern
per federal dollar
invested in the DfE
program
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
110
FY2011
Target
120
Units
Pounds/$
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Gallons of water
reduced by P2 program
participants.
FY 2009
Target
1.79 B
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
26.2 B
FY2011
Target
24.9 B
Units
Gallons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Business, institutional
and government costs
reduced by P2 program
participants.
FY 2009
Target
130 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1,060 M
FY2011
Target
1,550 M
Units
Dollars
Saved
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of hazardous
materials reduced by
P2 program
participants.
FY 2009
Target
494 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1,625 M
FY2011
Target
1,880 M
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Metric Tons of Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced,
conserved, or offset by
Pollution Prevention
(P2) program
participants.
FY 2009
Target
2M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
5.9 M
FY2011
Target
11.6M
Units
MTCO2e
476
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Energy savings per
dollar invested in the
Federal Electronics
Challenge (FEC)
program.
FY 2009
Target
1.31 M
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1.89M
FY2011
Target
2.19M
Units
BTUs/$
The P2 program aggregates results from all of the programs listed above. The program strives to
ensure that a transparent and consistent measurement framework is applied across the program.
In September 2008, the P2 program went to the Science Advisory Board for a consultation on the
issue of recurring results. Based on their feedback, each component of the P2 program will
count recurring results for an appropriate and reasonable timeframe to fully realize the ongoing
benefits of program intervention. Those adjustments are reflected in the FY 2011 targets.
In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, the P2 program reduced 469.8 million
pounds of hazardous materials, saved $227.2 million dollars, and conserved 21.18 billion gallons
of water. In 2011, the program has set targets to reduce 1.8 billion pounds of hazardous
materials, save $1.5 billion dollars, conserve 24.9 billion gallons of water, and reduce 11.6
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$336.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-$1,329.0 / -9.4 FTE) This reduction includes payroll resources and reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills
and Agency priorities. The EPP program will no longer provide support to EPA's Office
of Administration and Resources Management to green the Agency's facilities and
procurement actions. The program will eliminate its outreach and education efforts on
green purchasing. The decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately 31
percent, including anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, other hazardous
substances, and payroll.
• (-$804.0) This reduction reflects the termination of ongoing Design for the Environment
partnerships including those with the photovoltaic and automotive refmishing industries.
The decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately 28 percent, including
anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, and other hazardous substances.
• (-$805.0) This reduction will reduce the Green Chemistry program's communications
and outreach efforts, resulting in fewer nominations received combined with the
reduction in publication and marketing of award-winning technologies, possibly resulting
in limitations on the technology transfer and adoption of these technologies. The
decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately 28 percent, including
anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, and other hazardous substances.
477
-------
• (-$5.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$17.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$7.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health and
Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Protection Act; Toxic Substances Control Act.
478
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,802.7
$6,802.7
39.0
FY2010
Enacted
$6,025.0
$6,025.0
33.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,260.0
$6,260.0
34.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$235.0
$235.0
0.7
Program Project Description:
The Chemical Risk Management (CRM) Program supports national programs to lessen chemical
risk and exposure through reductions in use and safe removal, disposal and containment of
certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals, known generally as legacy chemicals. Some of these
chemicals were used widely in commerce and introduced into the environment before their risks
were known. The CRM Program currently focuses on providing assistance to Federal agencies
and others with responsibility for ensuring proper use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
reducing or eliminating the use of products containing mercury, and implementing statutory
requirements to address asbestos risks in schools.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
In FY 2011, EPA will develop a rule related to PCB manufacture, processing, use, and
distribution in commerce. Some use authorizations for PCBs are over thirty years old and could
benefit from being revisited. In FY 2010, assessments will be conducted to determine whether
some existing uses need to be phased out through a regulatory effort in FY 2011. The Agency
will develop and commence implementing regulatory and voluntary options, as appropriate.
Caulk containing PCBs was used in some buildings, including schools, in the 1950s through the
1970s and may pose risks over time. Therefore, EPA is currently providing school
administrators and building managers with information and recommendations about managing
PCBs in caulk and tools to help minimize possible exposure among both children and adults;
these efforts will continue in FY 2011. The Agency also will assist communities and building
and facility managers in identifying potential problems and, if necessary, assist with the
development of plans for PCB testing and removal. EPA is conducting research to better
understand the risks posed by caulk containing PCBs. The Pollution Prevention and Toxics
program is working closely with the Resource Conservation and Recovery program and the
Research and Development program on the PCBs in caulk issue which will have the lead on
reviewing caulk removal and disposal plans. For more information on the Agency's PCBs in
caulk work, see http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/.
479
-------
Mercury
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to promote the reduction of mercury use in products, both
domestically and internationally, as a component of its strategy to prevent mercury releases to
air, water, and land. These releases may occur during manufacturing and industrial processes,
during use or during the disposal or recycling of mercury-containing products and wastes.
Domestically, EPA is focusing its reduction efforts on switches, relays, and measuring devices
because these sectors represent the majority of mercury use in products and because cost-
effective alternatives are generally available. The Agency has proposed a significant new use
rule (SNUR) under TSCA Section 5(a) for flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers
— mercury products that are no longer manufactured or imported. The promulgation of a SNUR
for these products serves to restrict their re-entry into the economy and, therefore, their use and
the potential for human exposure. This SNUR is expected to be finalized in FY 2010. The
Agency also is developing regulatory and voluntary options for other mercury products,
specifically, button cell batteries, switches, relays, flame sensors, manometers, barometers,
pyschrometers/hygrometers, and non-fever thermometers. Work on developing these options
was initiated in FY 2009 and will be ongoing in FY 2010, with proposed rule issuance expected
in FY 2011 or FY 2012.
The Agency maintains a mercury use and products database111 to identify products containing
mercury and non-mercury product alternatives. To date, the database includes 4,677 products
(4,522 mercury containing and 155 non-mercury containing alternatives) produced by 553
manufacturers in 16 industry sectors. The database supports identification of opportunities for
risk reduction including collaborative efforts to reduce the use of mercury. For example, the
database has been used to support development of the TSCA Section 5(a) SNUR on various
types of meters (described above) and was used to support a tri-national (U.S./Canada/Mexico)
mercury products partnership sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. In
FY 2011, updates and expansion of the mercury use and products database are planned to
support the Agency's development and implementation of the regulatory and voluntary options
selected for other mercury products and for negotiating the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Mercury effort.
In February 2009, the UNEP Governing Council adopted a mandate for the initiation of
negotiations on a legally binding agreement to develop a comprehensive and suitable approach to
mercury, including provisions to reduce the supply, the demand, international trade, and
emissions of mercury. At that meeting, the U.S. delegation agreed to support this mandate.
Negotiations regarding the agreement will proceed until February 2013. In the interest of
meeting the mandate, the Agency will continue to support voluntary reductions in the use of
mercury through existing partnerships in the interim. The majority of the mercury deposition in
the US originates outside of our borders. In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to implement a
range of UNEP mercury partnerships, including a mercury waste partnership and a storage and
supply partnership to address the use, storage and disposal of mercury in developing countries,
with particular emphasis on reductions of mercury use in health care settings and schools and the
development of options for proper mercury waste storage. Under these global partnerships, the
Agency promotes the use of non-mercury products, develops mercury products inventory
111 http://www.epa.gov/mercurv/database.htm
480
-------
assessments and databases, and implements mercury-free programs in hospitals, schools and
other sectors around the world. The program will continue to track mercury reductions from the
UNEP mercury partnerships and build from successful pilots and lessons learned from these
projects. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/mercury/.
Asbestos/Fibers
Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986 and the
Agency finalized the implementing regulations in 1987. For schools, AHERA requires, among
other things: an original asbestos inspection, an asbestos re-inspection every three years for
schools that contain asbestos, the development and maintenance of an asbestos management
plan, custodial training on asbestos, and a requirement that schools use trained professionals to
perform asbestos inspections and abatement work. The Agency has been providing outreach and
technical assistance under the asbestos program for schools, in coordination with other Federal
agencies, states, and other organizations to help schools understand and comply with AHERA's
requirements112. These efforts are aimed at helping to ensure that children will be protected from
the possibility of exposure to asbestos in school buildings.
More specifically, in FY 2011, the Agency will continue to provide Federal oversight and
assistance in the following ways:
• Interpreting regulatory requirements to delegated state and local asbestos programs113,
• Responding to tips and complaints (e.g., calls from concerned parents and teachers)
regarding the Asbestos-in-Schools Rule by conducting onsite inspections or coordinating
with delegated states114,
• Responding to public requests for assistance such as information regarding AHERA
asbestos115, and
• Helping asbestos training providers comply with the Model Accreditation Plan
requirements by providing regulatory interpretation of its requirements116.
The Agency will continue to address risks related to some vermiculite inflation. Vermiculite is a
naturally occurring mineral composed of shiny flakes, resembling mica. When heated to a high
temperature, flakes of vermiculite expand as much as 8-30 times their original size. The
expanded vermiculite is a light-weight, fire-resistant, and odorless material and has been used in
numerous products, including insulation for attics and walls. A mine near Libby, Montana was
the source of over 70 percent of all vermiculite sold in the U.S. from 1919 to 1990. There was
also a deposit of asbestos at that mine, so the vermiculite from Libby was contaminated with
asbestos. To identify whether vermiculite insulation is from Libby, in FY 2010 the Agency is
developing qualitative analytical methods to identify the presence of asbestos fibers in
vermiculite insulation in cooperation with a Federal partner, the United States Geological
Service (USGS). In FY 2011, with methods in-hand, the Agency will continue and/or increase
112 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/index.html.
113 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/help.htmltfrole),
114 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/asbestos Jn_schools.html
115 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/regioncontact.html
116 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/ndaac.html
481
-------
outreach activities to the public related to identifying and taking appropriate precautions in
dealing with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.
See http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/verm.html.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program project supports EPA's objective to manage risks from well known
nationally recognized chemicals. Currently, the program has measures progress through a suite
of internal measures. In FY 2011, the program will continue to explore option for an external
measure to reflect progress under this program project. There are no specific measures for this
Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$166.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$104.0 / +0.7 FTE) This increase includes payroll resources and reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills
and Agency priorities; FTE are reprogrammed from the lead program to align
formulation resources more closely with current FANs for IT staff. This reprogramming
is based on a recent survey of IT staff utilization.
• (-$35.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act; Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act; Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act.
482
-------
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,260.7
$14,260.7
70.6
FY2010
Enacted
$14,329.0
$14,329.0
87.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,413.0
$14,413.0
85.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$84.0
$84.0
-1.2
Program Project Description:
Recent data show that significant progress has been made in the continuing effort to eliminate
childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has measured progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per
deciliter or higher. Data released in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
indicates that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning has declined from approximately 1.6
percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006117. The data show that progress is
being made to meet ambitious federal government-wide goal to eliminate childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern at those blood levels by 2010118.
At the same time, new data show adverse health effects to children at lower levels than
previously recognized.119 Therefore, EPA plans to begin measuring progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or
higher. EPA will continue to achieve further reductions in the incidence of children with these
lower, but still elevated blood levels.
EPA's Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the goal of minimizing the threat to human
health, particularly to young children, from environmental lead exposure in the following ways:
• Establishes standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices and
maintains a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement those
standards;
117 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National indicators
of Well-Being, 2009. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp.
118 "President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children"
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf
119 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 58823
Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children - how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16): 1515-1516
http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.neim.20030417.pdf
Lanphear BP, Homung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an
international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
483
-------
• Provides information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and take
actions about lead hazards in their homes;
• Establishes lead-safe work practice standards for renovation, repair and painting projects
in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint; and
• Works to establish a national pool of renovation contractors trained and certified to
implement those standards.
For more information see http://www.epa.gov/lead.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule & Revisions
In FY 2011, EPA will implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule to address
lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes and child-occupied
facilities with lead-based paint, as a further measure to help reduce childhood lead poisoning. To
implement this rule, EPA will accredit training providers in all non-authorized states, tribes and
territories; certify renovation contractors and firms; review state applications for authorization to
administer training and certification programs; provide oversight and guidance to all authorized
programs; and disseminate model training courses for lead-safe work practices.
Since June 23, 2008, twenty-six states and one tribe have demonstrated interest in applying for
program authorization. To date, one state has received authorization and several more are
expected to apply in the first half of FY 2010. On April 22, 2009, the Agency began the
accreditation of renovator and/or dust sampling technician training providers in all non-
authorized states, a step toward certification of renovation firms. On October 22, 2009
renovation firms began to apply for certification, and on April 22, 2010 the rule will be fully
implemented, except for forthcoming revisions as discussed below. By that time, all training
providers must be accredited, and all firms conducting RRP must be certified and must comply
with the lead-safe work practices prescribed in the rule.
Shortly after the RRP rule was published, several petitions were filed challenging the rule.
These petitions were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
On August 24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with the environmental and children's health
advocacy groups in settlement of their petitions. The agreement calls for the Agency to
undertake two separate rulemakings to take comments on revised provisions of the RRP rule and
two additional rulemakings, including an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), to
cover public and commercial buildings not covered by the RRP rule. In FY 2010, work will
begin to support the rule-making and in FY 2011, follow-on activities and final rule-making will
be implemented as follows:
Revise Provisions of the RRP
• Rule #1- "Opt-out Rule "
On October 21, 2009, EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing
to remove the RRP provision allowing home owners to opt out of the rule if they: 1)
484
-------
occupy the housing to be renovated, 2) no child under six or pregnant woman lives there,
3) no child under six is present on a regular basis; and 4) require renovation firms to
provide owners and occupants with a copy of the recordkeeping checklist that firms are
required to prepare/keep to demonstrate compliance with the RRP rule. Although final
Agency action on the "Opt-out Rule" must be taken by April 22, 2010, in FY 2011, the
Agency may need to make additional changes to existing outreach and training materials
to address the actions taken in the final rule.
• Rule #2: "Clearance Rule "
By April 22, 2010, the Agency must issue an NPRM that proposes to require renovation
firms to conduct quantitative dust wipe sampling after a subset of renovations; and to
demonstrate, through quantitative dust wipe sampling, that they have achieved the
established dust-lead clearance standards for a smaller subset of renovations that typically
create large amounts of leaded dust. In FY 2011, the Agency will respond to comments
on the NPRM and complete any additional analysis necessary to take final action on the
Clearance NPRM by July 15, 2011, as stipulated in the settlement agreement. Changes to
existing Agency outreach and training materials also may be needed to address the
actions taken in the final Clearance rulemaking.
Extend RRP to Public and Commercial Buildings
By April 22, 2010, the Agency must issue an ANPR discussing its intention to propose
work practice requirements for renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial
buildings other than child-occupied facilities (schools and child care centers already
covered by the final RRP rule); and evaluate whether renovations in the interiors of these
buildings create lead-based paint hazards, and, if so, propose work practice requirements
for those renovations.
• Rule #3: "Exterior Rule"
By December 15, 2011, the Agency must issue an NPRM to establish work practice
requirements for renovations on the exterior of public and commercial buildings other
than child-occupied facilities. Final action on the Exterior NPRM must be taken by July
15, 2013. Starting in FY 2010 and continuing in FY 2011, the Agency will be
conducting technical and economic data analysis for the NPRM to meet the December
2011 deadline.
• Rule #4: "Interior Rule "
By September 30, 2011, the Agency must consult with the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) on a risk assessment methodology to evaluate the hazards posed by renovations in
the interior of public and commercial buildings not covered by the final RRP rule. The
Agency must either issue a NPRM to establish work practice requirements for interior
renovations in public and commercial buildings or conclude that they do not create lead-
based paint hazards within 18 months of receiving the SAB report. Starting in FY 2010
and continuing in FY 2011, the Agency will be preparing the data, analysis, and charge
questions for the SAB consultation in FY 2011.
485
-------
Additionally, a significant and comprehensive outreach effort is being implemented to
support the RRP regulation and more generally increase public awareness about preventing
childhood lead poisoning, including a national public service advertising initiative with the
Ad Council and a companion marketing effort to target awareness messages to audiences
affected by RRP and those at particular risk. In addition, this comprehensive effort includes
the following:
• Education efforts aimed at all regulated parties including training providers, contractors
and landlords;
• Outreach to states, tribes, and territories to encourage delegation of authorized programs;
• Public awareness efforts targeted at homeowners, parents, educators and others to
encourage use of lead-safe work practices when renovating; and
• Providing technical assistance to ensure compliance with the RRP rule requirements.
Revisit the Lead Dust Standard and Definition of Lead-Based Paint
On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition requesting the Agency to lower lead dust hazard
standards and to modify the definition of lead-based paint in its regulations promulgated under
sections 401 and 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, petitioners are
requesting that EPA:
• Lower lead dust hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and
40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area
Og/ft2) to 10 |ig/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 |ig/ft2 to 100 |ig /ft2 or less for
window sills.
• Modify the definition of lead-based paint at 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously
applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied facilities, public
buildings and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight
(5,000 parts per million (ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a
corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.
The petition was filed by the National Center for Healthy Housing, the Alliance for Healthy
Homes, the Sierra Club and others. 12° On October 22, 2009, EPA responded to the petition, and
agreed to revisit the current lead dust hazards standard and to work with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to modify the definition of lead-based paint in its
regulations.
EPA's implementation of the RRP Rule will directly address this petition and reduce childhood
lead poisoning.
'http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-06/t23929.pdf
486
-------
Provide Education & Outreach
The Agency will continue to provide education and outreach to the public on the hazards of lead-
contaminated paint, dust, and soil, with particular emphasis on low-income communities in
support of the program's goal to reduce disparities in blood lead levels between low-income
children and other children. The program also will continue the ongoing administrative
regulations that govern lead hazard identification and abatement practices and maintain a
national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement those standards. The program
will continue to provide technical and policy assistance to states, tribes, and other Federal
agencies to help facilitate compliance with Federal requirements such as the lead disclosure
standards applicable to sales and rentals of pre-1978 housing. In addition, EPA will continue to
provide support to the National Lead Information Center (NLIC) to disseminate information to
the public through a telephone hotline and in electronic form. Please see the companion program
project "Categorical Grant: Lead" for further information on EPA's lead grant programs,
including those supporting training of lead remediation and renovation contractors, development
of authorized programs for abatement and inspections, lead outreach and education, enforcement
activities, and targeted assistance to reduce lead poisoning among vulnerable populations.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative number of
certified Renovation
Repair and Painting
firms
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
100,000
FY2011
Target
180,000
Units
Firms
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of children
(aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead
levels (>5 ug/dl).
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
3.5
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of children
(aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead
levels (>10ug/dl)
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Annual percentage of
lead-based paint
certification and refund
applications that
require less than 20
days of EPA effort to
process.
FY 2009
Target
92
FY 2009
Actual
97
FY 2010
Target
92
FY2011
Target
92
Units
Percent
487
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent difference in
the geometric mean
blood level in low-
income children 1-5
years old as compared
to the geometric mean
for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
28
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
The program's long-standing annual performance measure tracks the number of children aged 1
to 5 years with elevated blood lead levels (EBBL > or = 10 ug/dL). Data are collected from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES). NHANES is recognized as the primary database in the United States for
national blood lead statistics. Recent data indicate that the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning, defined as above, has declined from approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to
0.9 percent of children in 2006. The data shows that progress is being made to meet ambitious
Federal government-wide goals to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern
at those blood levels by 2010.
EPA's Lead Risk Reduction program is also beginning to track the percent of children with
blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL. As of 2006, 4.1 percent of children had blood lead levels
above 5 ug/dL121 CDC historical data are showing a slower rate of progress over time, reflecting
increased challenges associated with reaching remaining vulnerable populations122. The
opportunity for exposure through hazards posed by lead- based paint still exists in approximately
38 million homes built before 1978123 The lead program also tracks the disparities in blood lead
levels between low-income children and non low-income children. The program uses this
performance measure to track progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in
vulnerable populations. EPA's long-term goal, reflected in the FY 2009-2014 draft Strategic
Plan, is to close the gap between the geometric means of blood lead levels among low income
children versus non-low-income children, from a baseline percentage difference of 43.6 percent
(1999-2002), to a difference of 26 percent by FY 2014. According to the NHANES survey, an
overall downward trend with some variation has been observed with recent data showing a
percent difference of 35.6 percent from 2003-2006 and 26.6 percent from 2005-2008.
The lead program introduced a supporting output measure in FY 2010 that tracks the number of
firms certified in Renovation Repair and Painting. These data will not be subject to the data lags
of the biomonitoring measures mentioned above, and will show the total programmatic impact as
the number of certified firms increase from zero in FY 2009 to several hundred thousand
121 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National indicators
of Well-Being, 2009; http://www.childstats. gov/americaschildren/phenviro3 .asp
122 National Center for Environmental Health. 2005. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf
123 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J. Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, DA.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, D.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W.
(2002). The prevalence fo lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606
488
-------
anticipated by FY 2014. The Lead program's annual efficiency measure tracks improvements in
certification application time for lead-based paint professionals and refund applications.
Certification work represents a significant portion of the lead budget and overall efficiencies in
management of certification activities will result in numerous opportunities to improve program
management effectiveness and efficiency. Since 2004, the percent of applicants processed under
20 days has increased from 77 to 92 percent, with most recent progress in 2009 jumping to
97percent. The FY 2011 targets sustain this high level of achievement.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$307.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$188.07-1.2 FTE) This reduction includes payroll resources and reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources. FTE
are reprogrammed to the chemical risk programs to optimize IT staff utilization.
• (-$2.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$33.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects efforts to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act.
489
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
490
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,581.6
$12,234.1
$10,887.1
$1,347.0
$25,815.7
124.9
FY2010
Enacted
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,647.0
$12,162.0
$12,162.0
$0.0
$26,809.0
136.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,223.0
$549.0
$549.0
$0.0
$2,772.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
EPA works with states, tribes, and intertribal consortia to prevent, detect, and clean up leaks
from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and hazardous
substances. Potential adverse effects from the use of contaminants of concern such as benzene,
methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), alcohols, or lead scavengers in gasoline underscore the
emphasis the Agency and its state partners place on promoting compliance with all UST
requirements, including the requirements described in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct)124 of 2005.
In support of this goal, EPA provides technical information, forums for information exchanges
and training opportunities to states, tribes, and intertribal consortia to encourage program
development and/or implementation of the UST program.125
In the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the LUST cleanup program
received $200 million in budget authority, of which a total of $1.3 million was obligated under
LUST/UST. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPAct contains numerous provisions that significantly affect Federal and state UST
programs. The EPAct requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release prevention programs,
through such activities as: mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage
tanks, operator training, prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities, and secondary
containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers.126 In FY 2011,
EPA will continue to work to bring all UST systems into compliance and keep them in
compliance with the release detection and release prevention requirements. These activities
124 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109 cong public Iaws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf Energy Policy
Act of 2005; Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513.
125 Refer to http: //www.epa. gov/oust/ustsv stm/index.htm
126 For more information on these and other activities please refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm.
491
-------
include assisting states in conducting inspections, enforcing violations discovered during the
inspections, and assisting other Federal agencies to improve their compliance at UST facilities.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to support core development and implementation of state and
Tribal UST programs; strengthen the network of its Federal, state and local partners, specifically
communities and vulnerable populations; and provide technical assistance, compliance
assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST facilities' compliance. To help states and
tribes implement the UST prevention program, EPA expects to incorporate community input, as
appropriate, and issue a final regulation in FY 2011 to ensure full implementation of the EPAct
requirements. EPA will provide training opportunities and assistance tools to better prepare UST
inspectors and better inform UST owners. EPA will explore the opportunities for financial
assurance mechanisms to create incentives for improved compliance by tank owners and
operators.
EPA has the primary responsibility to implement the UST Program in Indian country and to
maintain information on USTs located in Indian country. EPA will continue implementing the
FY 2006 UST Tribal strategy127, engaging and protecting those most vulnerable, including
developing regulatory requirements for secondary containment, delivery prohibition, and
operator training in Indian country. EPA also will continue to work to improve compliance rates
in Indian country.
The Agency and states also will continue to use innovative compliance approaches, rely on
sound science and emerging technology, along with outreach and education tools, to bring more
tanks into compliance and to prevent releases. EPA's UST program will continue its
commitment to scientific integrity through support for research on emerging issues, such as
alternative fuels. The emergence of alternative fuels poses several challenges for the UST
program, requiring innovative policy solutions. In order to help address these challenges in FY
2011, the Agency will invest in a cross-program initiative, the Climate and Clean Energy
Challenge. To ensure an effective and safe migration toward alternative fuels and to identify
potentially widespread and avoidable environmental and health impacts, EPA will work with
states and tribes to assess UST compatibility with alternative fuels and evaluate the transport and
degradation characteristics of ethanol and biodiesel as well as other blends. This will lead to
tools, models, and technologies to assist in the remediation of biofuels. The Agency will monitor
releases and conduct damage case assessments. Progress will be measured through the
development of recommendations to prevent contamination of land and groundwater as a result
of transition to alternative fuels.
Additionally, there are an unknown number of petroleum brownfields sites (estimated to be at
least 200 thousand) that are predominately old gas stations that blight the environmental and
economic health of surrounding neighborhoods. The EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
and the EPA Brownfields program jointly focus attention and resources on the cleanup and reuse
of petroleum-contaminated sites. In FY 2008, EPA developed a new plan of action to promote
reusing petroleum brownfields.128 The plan outlines EPA's commitment to cleaning up
127 Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 off the EPAct of'2005, August 2006, EPA-510-F-
06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/tribalst.htm
128 Petroleum Brownfields Action Plan, http://www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/petrobfactionplan.htm
492
-------
petroleum-contaminated sites and fostering their reuse. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to bolster
communication and outreach to petroleum brownfields stakeholders; provide targeted technical
assistance to state, Tribal, and local governments; evaluate policies to facilitate increased
petroleum brownfields site revitalization; and continue to pursue corridor and Smart Growth
projects with the states to promote investment in and the sustainable reuse of petroleum
brownfields. In FY 2011, EPA will also analyze tools that promote assessment, cleanup and
reuse of petroleum brownfields; introduce a petroleum brownfields community workbook that
showcases successful reuse, such as successful redevelopment on former petroleum-affected
brownfields highlighting "green" practices and reuse strategies; support the reuse of petroleum
brownfields by small business owners; and continue cross-media and geographic multi-site
petroleum brownfields projects.
To improve the LUST (prevention) program, EPA worked with its state partners to develop an
efficiency measure of the annual confirmed releases per the annual underground storage tanks
leak prevention costs.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$362.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$2,000.07 +5.0 FTE) This will support efforts for meeting the Climate and Clean
Energy Challenge, including 5.0 FTE and associated payroll of $643.0. These resources
and FTE will support activities to assess the UST compatibility with alternative fuels.
• (-$121.07 -1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of resources from the LUST/UST
program to the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs to improve
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data quality. The reduced
resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $121.0
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(Subtitle I), Section 8001 (a) and (b) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (P.L. 98-616); and the EPAct, Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B -
Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Sections 1521 - 1533, P.L. 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801;
RCRA of 1976; Tribal Grants Public Law 105-276.
493
-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
494
-------
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$27,082.7
$27,082.7
48.7
FY2010
Enacted
$32,567.0
$32,567.0
48.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$27,233.0
$27,233.0
49.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($5,334.0)
($5,334.0)
1.0
Program Project Description:
The goal of this program is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of national
estuaries and coastal watersheds by protecting and enhancing water quality and living resources.
Major project efforts include:
• Supporting the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEP) through (1) continued
implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) and
(2) implementation of Clean Water Act (CWA) core programs in their estuarine
ecosystems;
• Monitoring and coastal assessment resulting in the continued issuance of National
Coastal Condition Reports;
• Supporting enhancement of NEP climate change adaptation activities;
• Addressing threats like hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico in non-NEP estuary/coastal
watersheds; and
• Integrating the NEP/coastal waterways program into Federal agency management of
oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes, which will be established by the National Ocean
Policy.
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Estuarine and coastal waters are among the most environmentally and economically valuable
natural resources in the nation. Resources in FY 2011 will support implementation of the
National Ocean Policy and EPA's goal of protecting estuaries of national significance and other
estuarine/coastal watersheds, and protecting and restoring additional acres of habitat in NEP
study areas. This work will be undertaken in partnership with states, tribes, coastal communities
and other partners.
495
-------
The National Estuary Program
In FY 2011, EPA will continue support of the National Estuary Program by providing $16.8
million in CWA Section 320 grants for the 28 NEPs ($600 thousand per NEP). Continued
support of this flagship watershed protection program will help address continuing and emerging
threats to the nation's estuarine resources.129 EPA will continue support of NEP CCMP
implementation as well as implementation of CWA core programs. Specifically, EPA's activities
include:
• Supporting all 28 NEPs' continued efforts to exercise local and regional leadership by
targeting protection and restoration of estuarine resources and promoting environmental
sustainability, including sustainable land practices, through CCMP implementation. EPA
oversight of NEP CCMP implementation includes the ongoing review of NEP's
environmental programs, projects, and results and of the NEP's leveraging of partner
resources. In addition, every three years EPA conducts a performance evaluation of each
NEP to assess overall progress toward CCMP implementation made by the NEP.
• Supporting NEP efforts to achieve EPA's goal of protecting and restoring 250,000
additional acres of habitat by FY 2012 and promoting alignment of NEP restoration goals
with those of Federal, Tribal, state, regional, and local agencies.
The effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, increases
in intensity of and damage from storms, and changes in commercially and ecologically
significant species, are a growing concern in U.S. coastal watersheds. EPA will continue
working with our NEP and non-NEP partners to identify, develop, and promote strategies whose
goal is to enable coastal watershed communities to adapt to emerging climate change impacts
(e.g., promotion of "climate-ready estuaries" in coastal communities).
The program will continue implementing its enhanced NEP data reporting and tracking system
and supporting NEP efforts to attain ambitious annual and long-term habitat protection and
restoration targets. Also, the Agency will conduct the third round of program evaluations using a
Performance Evaluation Review process implemented in September 2007. During a program
evaluation, the agency evaluates each NEP's progress toward achieving its environmental and
programmatic goals. This process has made evaluation of the NEPs more objective and
consistent.
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
In FY 2011, the program will lead the effort to strengthen knowledge of our coasts and oceans by
monitoring and assessing the nation's coastal waters. Along with Federal, state, and local
partners, EPA will continue to track coastal waters health and progress on NEP/Coastal
Watershed strategic targets by issuing future editions of a National Coastal Condition Report
129 The means and strategies outlined under the Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters sub-objective must be viewed in tandem with
the means and strategies outlined for achieving the Increase Wetlands sub-objective. The Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters
sub-objective contains strategic measures for ocean and coastal programs that are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitate the
ecosystem scale protection and restoration of natural areas.
496
-------
(NCCR), supporting efforts to monitor and assess U.S. coastal waters, and developing additional
indicators of coastal ecosystem health. The NCCR is the only statistically-significant measure of
coastal water quality and covers both national and regional scales, and includes indices covering
coastal water quality, sediment quality, benthic condition, coastal habitat, and fish tissue
contamination.
Information on coastal ecological conditions generated by the NCCR can be used by resource
managers to efficiently and effectively target water quality actions and manage those actions to
maximize benefits. The NCCR is based on data gathered by various Federal, state, and local
sources using a probability design that allows extrapolation to represent all coastal waters of a
state, region, and the entire U.S.
Other Coastal Watersheds
In FY 2011, EPA will continue other coastal watershed work, including:
• Gulf Hypoxia. EPA's role in implementing the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Plan) will not only require overall
leadership in coordinating activities among Federal and state agencies, but also places
EPA in the lead role for several specific actions in the plan. A key goal is to improve
water quality in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico by implementing
sustainable land use practices. One important action involves Federal approaches that
provide a framework for state nutrient strategies. EPA's role in this action will include
identification of strategies and coordination of existing EPA efforts. These strategies may
include TMDL, nutrient criteria, and standards development, as well as point source,
wetlands, and air deposition activities that are aligned with the need to reduce the size of
the Gulf Dead Zone. EPA staff leads the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force Communications
Sub-Committee and in FY 2011 will continue to develop Annual Operating Plans and
Annual Reports that track progress and increase awareness about Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia-related progress and barriers along with other stakeholder outreach and
education efforts. Other critical activities requiring ongoing EPA leadership and
coordination include providing support for the sub-basin teams, coordinating Mississippi
River-Atchafalaya River Basin monitoring activities, and enhancing research and
modeling to identify the highest opportunity watersheds for nutrient reductions.
Resources in this program project supplement resources in the Geographic Program:
Mississippi River Basin, Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico, and Surface Water
Protection program projects.
• Large Aquatic Ecosystems: EPA's Council of Large Aquatic Ecosystems (LAEs) is
working to foster collaboration among the Agency's ecosystem-based efforts, such as the
Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and national water programs. The goals are to
improve the health of the nation's large aquatic ecosystems, strengthen links to the
national water programs, and establish a comprehensive management system across the
LAEs. LAEs share a number of priority issues, and the Council has formed workgroups
to address topics including nutrient management, stormwater control, management plan
implementation tracking tools, and toxics reduction. It has made progress in
strengthening Core Water Program implementation, and has developed and applied
497
-------
leading-edge communication tools to share lessons learned among Council members, and
to inform a larger audience of its progress. Resources in other program projects fund
activities in individual ecosystems (e.g. Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound
and San Francisco Bay).
• Financing Coastal Protection and Restoration: Development of long-term finance plans
and effective partnerships, and promoting community support are key to successful
funding of coastal watershed protection and restoration efforts. EPA will provide coastal
resource managers with information about accessing the Agency's watershed funding
portal and using its web-based resources, including a prioritization tool, step-by-step
finance planning module, and funding databases.
• Climate Ready Estuaries: EPA will continue to strengthen the capacity of NEPs and
other coastal watershed entities to lead coastal communities' adaptation to the impacts of
climate change. EPA has modified the successful National Park Service model, "Climate-
Friendly Parks" to address NEP and coastal watershed adaptation issues. The program
office will work with the NEPs to: (1) develop and implement "Climate-Ready Estuary"
models assessing watersheds' vulnerabilities to climate change; (2) develop and
implement adaptation strategies; (3) engage and educate stakeholders; and (4) share
lessons learned with other coastal managers. In FY 2011, the Climate Ready Estuaries
program will designate NEPs and other coastal communities as "climate ready," allowing
coastal leaders to implement climate adaptation strategies within their communities and
to market their needs and actions to local public and private interests.
National Ocean Policy
EPA will continue to participate in the implementation of the objectives laid out in the
Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force in 2009. The Task Force, led by the Council of
Environmental Quality, is charged with developing a recommendation for a national policy that
ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It
also will recommend a framework for improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine
spatial planning. (For more info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/
oceans.) The National Oceans Policy and the Framework for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
strengthen the work that the Federal government conducts with states, tribes, partners and other
stakeholders to protect vital resources in our oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Policy will
help EPA and the rest of the Federal family to leverage information and sound science to
promote a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will
help EPA achieve its goals for clean and safe water, especially for its geographic programs for
the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and the 28 estuaries that
make up the National Estuary Program. Its emphasis on ecosystem-based management is closely
related to EPA's work on healthy watersheds and sustainable communities. The role that EPA
will continue to play within this new framework will be especially linked to the areas of
emphasis concerning water quality and sustainable practices on land, resiliency and adaptation to
climate change and ocean acidification, and regional ecosystem protection and restoration.
498
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres protected or
restored in National
Estuary Program study
areas.
FY 2009
Target
100,000
FY 2009
Actual
125,437
FY 2010
Target
100,000
FY2011
Target
100,000
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars per
acre of habitat
protected or restored.
FY 2009
Target
500
FY 2009
Actual
659
FY 2010
Target
500
FY2011
Target
500
Units
Dollars
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$111.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$155.0 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These resources
are shifting to support the National Estuary Program.
• (-$5,600.0) This reduces Congressionally-directed funding in FY 2010 for the CWA
Section 320 grants. This request proposes $16.8 million for $600 thousand for each NEP.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; CWA;
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; NAWCA;
WRDA; 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda;
1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; Coastal Wetlands Planning; U.S.-
Canada Agreements.
499
-------
Wetlands
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$23,124.1
$23,124.1
152.1
FY2010
Enacted
$25,940.0
$25,940.0
159.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$28,231.0
$28,231.0
164.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,291.0
$2,291.0
4.9
Program Project Description:
Wetlands improve water quality, recharge water supplies, reduce flood risks, provide fish and
wildlife habitat, offer sites for research and education, and support valuable fishing and shellfish
industries. EPA's Wetlands Protection program relies on partnerships with other programs
within EPA, other Federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, private landowners,
and the general public to improve protection of our nation's valuable wetland resources.
Working with our partners, EPA ensures a sound and consistent approach to wetlands protection.
EPA's Wetlands program operates under the national goal of "no net loss" of wetlands under the
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. Major activities of the Wetlands Protection
program include development and dissemination of rules, guidance, information and scientific
tools to improve management and public understanding of wetland programs and legal
requirements, and managing financial assistance to states and tribes to support development of
strong wetland protection programs. In FY 2009, the Agency significantly enhanced
collaboration with the Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
implement an Interagency Action Plan (IAP) to significantly reduce the harmful effects of
Appalachian surface coal mining operations.
EPA works with the Corps of Engineers to implement the provisions of Section 404 of the CWA
to protect wetlands and other waters of the U.S. EPA also works in partnership with non-
governmental organizations and state, Tribal, and local agencies to conserve and restore wetlands
and other waters through watershed planning approaches, voluntary and incentive-based
programs, improved scientific methods, information and education, and building the capacity of
state and local programs. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ or http://www.cfda.gov for
more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will work with its state and Tribal partners to strengthen their wetland
programs in the areas of monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection,
regulatory programs including CWA 401 certification, and wetland water quality standards. The
Agency will assist states and tribes to develop and implement broad-based and integrated
500
-------
monitoring and assessment programs that improve data for decision-making on wetlands within
watersheds, address significant stressors, and report on conditions, as well as geo-locating
wetlands on the landscape. In support of state and Tribal wetland programs, EPA will continue to
administer Wetland Program Development Grants, with a strengthened focus in FY 2011 on
achieving program development outcomes and providing targeted technical assistance to states
and tribes as resources allow.
In FY 2011, resources are requested to continue to implement the Interagency Action Plan (LAP)
that was signed with the Department of Interior and the Corps on June 11, 2009, to significantly
reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/ wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11 -09.pdf). Coordinating with
the Corps, states, resource agencies, and the public, EPA will review CWA 404 permits of
concern and negotiate resolution to outstanding environmental issues with the Corps and mine
operators. In addition, the Agency will work with Federal partners to develop guidelines for
compensatory mitigation for stream impacts and on CWA S. 402 permit issues. Based on its
review in 2010 of existing regulatory authorities and procedures, EPA will consider regulatory
and/or policy modifications to better protect the environment and public health from the impacts
of Appalachian surface coal mining. In addition, the Agency will develop guidance and policies
related to the application of CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines to surface coal mining,
compensatory mitigation of stream and wetland impacts, and working with the affected states to
improve CWA Section 401 certifications for mining permits.
The Agency, working with the Corps and other partners, will implement the joint Corps-EPA
Compensatory Mitigation Rule finalized in FY 2008. EPA's support will help avoid or minimize
wetland losses and provide for full compensation for unavoidable losses of wetland functions
through wetlands restoration and enhancement, using a watershed approach and tools such as
mitigation banking. Greater emphasis will be placed on monitoring and achieving ecological
performance standards at mitigation sites. EPA will continue to focus on wetland and stream
corridor restoration to regain lost aquatic resources and strengthen state and Tribal wetland
programs to protect vulnerable wetland resources.
Another key activity in FY 2011 will be implementing the 2006 decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court in the Rapanos and Carabell cases. The decision in Rapanos resulted in an increased
demand on EPA and the Corps for case-by-case decisions on whether specific streams and
wetlands are within the scope of jurisdiction under the CWA. These thousands of case-by-case
decisions have increased the amount of training needed for EPA and Corps field staff and the
frequency of interagency analysis and coordination, including site visits.
Working with our Federal agency partners to accelerate the completion of the digital Wetlands
Data Layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory (NSDI) is another critical activity for wetlands
management. This baseline data is essential for local, state, Tribal, Regional and national
agencies so they can better manage and conserve wetlands in the face of challenges imposed by
climate change and other stressors. The Wetlands Data Layer is one of 34 layers of digital data
that comprise the NSDI. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responsibility for
maintaining the Wetlands Data Layer and EPA works closely with FWS to help ensure the map
is updated and maintained. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work closely with Federal partners
501
-------
and others to accelerate the acquisition and uploading of new wetlands data. The Wetlands Data
Layer is the main source of coastal wetlands data for EPA's sea level rise model and is used by a
number of Federal agencies. SLAMM (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model) simulates the
dominant processes involved in wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-
term sea level rise. Increasing the accuracy and completeness of the Wetlands Data Layer is
important to the overall effectiveness of SLAMM and directly affects the accuracy of Federal sea
level rise projections, a key factor in understanding and addressing climate change.
Although wetland acreage is increasing nationally, wetlands in coastal watersheds are declining.
This is a concern because wetlands are nurseries for many fish and shellfish of commercial and
recreational importance, and are also important as storm buffers and for floodwater storage. A
recent report by the FWS and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's National
Marine Fisheries Service found that coastal wetlands in the Eastern U.S. are decreasing by
59,000 acres per year (Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Eastern
United States 1998 to 2004 available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands). EPA will collaborate
with other Federal agencies including FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Federal Highways Administration, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service to better understand the factors contributing to wetland losses and identify actions that
could reduce or reverse trends in coastal wetland loss.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of acres
restored and improved,
under the 5-Star,NEP,
319, and great
waterbody programs
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
88,000
FY 2009
Actual
103,507
FY 2010
Target
110,000
FY2011
Target
118,000
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
In partnership with the
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, states, and
tribes, achieve no net
loss of wetlands each
year under the Clean
Water Act Section 404
regulatory program.
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2009
Actual
No Net
Loss
FY 2010
Target
No Net
Loss
FY2011
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Acres
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$545.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,760.07 +4.9 FTE) This reflects resources to support implementation of the
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan by providing additional Section 404
502
-------
permit reviewers and issuing guidance to implement plan recommendations, including
4.9 FTE and associated payroll of $657.0.
• (-$14.0) This decision reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications
resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to
the Information Security program.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; CWA; 2002
CWPPR; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; NAWCA; WRDA; 1909 The Boundary
Waters Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987 GLWQA; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great
Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
503
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
504
-------
Beach / Fish Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,102.2
$3,102.2
7.4
FY2010
Enacted
$2,944.0
$2,944.0
7.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,974.0
$2,974.0
7.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$30.0
$30.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the Agency's efforts to protect people from contaminated recreational
waters and contaminated fish and shellfish. Recreational waters, especially beaches in coastal
areas and the Great Lakes, provide recreational opportunities for millions of Americans.
However, swimming in some recreational waters, or eating locally caught fish or shellfish, can
pose a risk of illness as a result of exposure to microbial pathogens or other pollutants.
Beaches Program
The Beaches program protects human health by reducing exposure to contaminated recreational
waters. Agency activities include: 1) issuing guidance to improve beach monitoring and public
notification programs, including effective strategies to communicate public health risks to the
public; 2) developing and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment methods and criteria for
use in evaluating recreational water quality, prioritizing beach waters for monitoring, and
warning beach users of health risks or closure of beaches; 3) promulgating Federal water quality
standards where a state or tribe fails to adopt appropriate standards to protect coastal and Great
Lakes recreational waters; and 4) providing publicly accessible Internet-based information about
local beach conditions and closures. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information.
Fish and Shellfish Programs
The Fish Advisory programs provide sound science, guidance, technical assistance, and
nationwide information to state, Tribal, and Federal agencies on the human health risks
associated with eating locally caught fish with excessive levels of contaminants. The Agency
pursues the following activities to support this program: 1) publishing criteria guidance that
states and tribes can use to adopt health-based water quality standards, assess their waters, and
establish permit limits; 2) developing and disseminating sound scientific risk assessment
methodologies and guidance that states and tribes can use to sample, analyze, and assess fish
tissue in support of waterbody-specific or regional consumption advisories, or to determine that
no consumption advice is necessary; 3) developing and disseminating guidance that states and
tribes can use to communicate the risks of consuming chemically contaminated fish; and 4)
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information to the public and health professionals that
505
-------
enable informed decisions on when and where to fish, and how to prepare fish caught for
recreation and subsistence.
Mercury contamination in fish and shellfish is a special concern, and EPA and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) have issued a joint advisory concerning eating fish and shellfish.
Mercury contamination of fish and shellfish occurs locally, as well as in ocean-caught fish, and
at higher levels causes adverse health effects, especially in children and infants.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will pursue the following:
Beaches Program:
States and territories monitored 3,740 beaches in 2008. To continue making progress on
monitoring beaches in FY 2011, EPA expects to:
• Make grant funds available to all 35 eligible states and territories, as well as eligible
tribes, to monitor beach water quality and to notify the public of beach warnings and
closings;
• Oversee beach program implementation and grant expenditures;
• Continue to make available to the public, through EPA's Beach Advisory Closing On-
line Notification (BEACON) system, information on the status of beach closings at all
monitored beaches, including an annual report;
• Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to address
monitoring issues; and
• Continue to work with states, territories, and tribes to obtain input on implementation
issues associated with new recreational water quality criteria that are under development
to ensure smooth transition in the use of the new criteria in the implementation of the
Beach Monitoring and Notification program.
Fish and Shellfish Programs:
• Continue to work with FDA and public health agencies to develop and distribute outreach
materials related to the joint guidance issued by EPA and FDA for mercury in fish and
shellfish and assess the public's understanding of the guidance;
• Continue to work with FDA to investigate the extent and risks of contaminants in fish,
including the potential need for advisories for other pollutants, and to distribute outreach
materials;
506
-------
• Continue to provide technical support to states in the operation of their monitoring
programs and on acceptable levels of contaminant concentrations, and in states'
development and management offish advisories;
• Continue to release the summary of information on locally issued fish advisories and
safe-eating guidelines. This information is provided to EPA annually by states and tribes;
and
• Continue to reduce total blood mercury concentrations through ongoing work with FDA
on joint guidance issued to the public, and by encouraging and supporting the states'
implementation of their fish advisory programs through such measures as the National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish and publishing the National Listing of Fish Advisories.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of women of
childbearing age
having mercury levels
in blood above the
level of concern.
FY 2009
Target
5.2
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2013
FY 2010
Target
5.1
FY2011
Target
4.9
Units
Percent
Women
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of waterborne
disease outbreaks
attributable to
swimming in or other
recreational contact
with coastal and Great
Lakes waters measured
as a 5 -year average.
FY 2009
Target
2
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2012
FY 2010
Target
2
FY2011
Target
2
Units
Outbreaks
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of days of
beach season that
coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
beach safety programs
are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2009
Target
93
FY 2009
Actual
95
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Days/Season
507
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$27.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3.0) This increase reflects small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or
other support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
508
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$98,250.4
$3,359.7
$101,610.1
565.9
FY2010
Enacted
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$105,328.0
$3,827.0
$109,155.0
589.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,104.0
$190.0
$3,294.0
-0.3
Program Project Description:
EPA's Drinking Water program is based on the multiple-barrier approach to protect public health
from unsafe drinking water. Under this approach, EPA protects public health through: source
water assessment and protection programs; promulgation of new or revised, scientifically sound
and risk-based National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs); training, technical
assistance, and financial assistance programs to enhance public water systems' capacity to
comply with existing and new regulations; underground injection control programs; and the
national implementation of NPDWRs by state and Tribal drinking water programs through
regulatory, non-regulatory, and voluntary programs and policies to ensure safe drinking water.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater and https://www.cfda.gov/ for more information.)
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Safe drinking water is critical to protecting human health. More than 290 million Americans rely
on the safety of tap water provided by public water systems that are subject to national drinking
water standards.130 In FY 2011, EPA will continue to protect sources of drinking water from
contamination; develop new and revise existing drinking water standards; support states, tribes,
and water systems in implementing standards; promote sustainable management of drinking
water infrastructure; and implement the underground injection control program. As a result of
these efforts, the Agency will ensure that 91 percent of the population served by community
water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards.
Drinking Water Implementation
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue implementing requirements for newer risk based rules that
require a higher degree of involvement by states to ensure that systems do not install more
treatment than is necessary to comply. These include provisions to protect against
Cryptosporidium (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule or "LT2"), to control
130 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.
509
-------
disinfection by-products (Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule or "Stage 2"),
and to ensure quality water from ground water sources (Ground Water Rule). EPA also will
assist states in implementing public water system health requirements for high-priority drinking
water contaminants, including those covered under the Arsenic Rule and revised Lead and
Copper Rule. By FY 2011, most water systems should be in compliance or on schedule to install
treatment or develop alternative solutions to reduce their arsenic levels below the new standard.
However, a small number of systems may be under exemptions or completing activities pursuant
to an enforcement schedule. EPA will assist small water systems in choosing cost effective
treatment technologies by maintaining and enhancing its Arsenic Virtual Trade Show website,
continuing to disseminate results from its Arsenic Treatment Demonstration Program, and
coordinating with technical assistance providers. EPA also will continue collaborating with our
state partners and other Federal agencies to assist these small water systems in finalizing and
funding their arsenic reduction efforts. In addition, EPA will provide assistance to state staff on
technical issues with regulations, including recognizing and preventing the potential unintended
consequences of treatment decisions. EPA also will significantly expand its oversight and
tracking of state programs as part of its small systems approach to improve compliance and
sustainability, including development of new performance measures for the Agency. EPA will
increase its guidance and oversight of the DWSRF to focus funding on compliance issues, and
will produce new guidance to improve state capacity development programs. EPA also will
develop information to promote voluntary restructuring of unsustainable water systems. Finally,
EPA will work with states to better target drinking water infrastructure dollars toward rule
compliance and system sustainability, and will partner with other Federal funding authorities to
support these efforts.
In order to facilitate compliance with these newer rules, as well as existing rules, EPA will:
• Continue direct implementation of the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, which will affect 63
airlines and over 7000 aircraft. EPA will provide training to the air carrier industry to
facilitate compliance with the new requirements;
• Carry out the drinking water program where EPA has primacy (e.g., Wyoming, the
District of Columbia, and Tribal lands), and where states have not yet adopted new
regulations;
• Continue to provide guidance, training (including webcasts), and technical assistance to
states, tribes, laboratories and utilities on the implementation of drinking water
regulations, especially the Ground Water Rule, revised Lead and Copper Rule, and Total
Coliform Rule, as well as simultaneous compliance. Monitoring under the Ground Water
Rule begins in FY 2010. EPA will promote best practices related to operation and
maintenance of small systems in support of long term compliance success with existing
regulations;
• Provide training and technical assistance to states and to water systems that need to
increase their treatment to comply with Stage 2 and LT2. Over 59,000 water systems
will need to comply with the rules during 2011;
510
-------
• Support states in their efforts to provide technical, managerial, and financial assistance to
small systems to improve their capacity to consistently meet regulatory requirements
through the use of cost-effective treatment technologies, proper disposal of treatment
residuals, and compliance with contaminant requirements, including monitoring under
the arsenic and radionuclide rules and rules controlling microbial pathogens and
disinfection byproducts;
• Improve the quality of data in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) by
continuing to work with states to improve data completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and
consistency through: training on data entry, error correction, and regulatory reporting;
conducting data verifications and analyses; and implementing quality assurance and
quality control procedures. Additionally, EPA will continue working with states to
identify underlying causes of data quality problems and take actions to improve quality;
• Work with states and regulated water systems to consider and develop alternatives for
exchanging compliance data. This effort will include monitoring results to leverage
technology, reduce costs, and provide the data more broadly;
• Work with state and local governments to better target Federal funding and other SDWA
tools toward disadvantaged water systems to help small water systems meet the costs of
complying with current and future drinking water standards; and
• Continue on-going oversight programs for categorical grants; Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS), Underground Injection Control (UIC), as well as the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
Drinking Water Standards
In FY 2011, the Agency will assess the available information on health effects and occurrence
data in drinking water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) contaminants
have sufficient information on which to evaluate the public health concern and make a decision
whether or not to regulate the contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA will work
to compile this information to make such determinations for at least five CCL 3 contaminants by
2012. The Agency also will continue to evaluate and address drinking water risks though
activities to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) including:
• Responding to public comment on proposed revisions to the Total Coliform Rule. In
addition, EPA will prepare a final rule which is scheduled for publication in 2012;
• Developing analytical methods that can be utilized by laboratories across the U.S. to test
for the presence of new and emerging contaminants in drinking water;
• Analyzing three years of data on the frequency and level of occurrence of 25 unregulated
contaminants in public water systems collected during the second Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). EPA will propose the third round of UCMR
monitoring (UCMR3) in FY 2011 and publish the final UCMR3 in FY 2012;
511
-------
• Collaborating with stakeholders to undertake the highest priority research and
information collection activities to better understand water quality issues in distribution
systems;
• Implementing the appropriate actions (i.e. regulatory revisions or revised guidance) to
address the long term issues identified in the national review of the revised Lead and
Copper Rule. Long term issues that could be addressed include the effectiveness of
partial lead service line replacement and effectiveness of lead and copper sampling
requirements; and
• Compiling and analyzing information to support reviews of existing drinking water
regulations for candidate contaminants as identified as part of the Agency's Six Year
Review
Sustainable Infrastructure and Effective Utility Management
With the aging of the nation's infrastructure and a growing need for investment, the drinking
water and wastewater sectors face a significant challenge to sustain and advance the
achievements attained in protecting public health and the environment. EPA's sustainable
infrastructure efforts are designed to promote more effective management of water utilities in
order to continuously improve their performance and achieve long-term sustainability in their
infrastructure, operations and other facets of their business.
EPA will continue to assist drinking water utilities to be sustainable through successful business
practices, by providing funding and technical assistance including the following:
• Providing states with funds for low-interest loans to assist utilities with financing
drinking water infrastructure needs. In FY 2011, EPA will work with states to encourage
targeting Federal financial assistance to support utility compliance with safe drinking
water standards; EPA also will work with utilities to promote technical, financial, and
managerial capacity as a critical means to meet infrastructure needs; further enhance
program performance and efficiency; and ensure compliance;
• Continue to implement the Agency's multi-faceted DWSRF management strategy to
ensure effective oversight of these funds and optimization of program outcomes;
• EPA will partner with states to leverage capacity development and operator certification
work with asset management initiatives including source water protection approaches to
manage water resources;
• EPA will engage states and other stakeholders to facilitate the voluntary adoption of
sustainable practices by drinking water utilities; and
• Further, EPA will partner with utilities and with other agencies to address operator
workforce issues, promote water and energy efficiency, and identify options for utilities
in response to climate change impacts and water resource limitations.
512
-------
Additionally, in FY 2011, the Agency will collect data for the required fifth Needs Survey. The
survey will document 20-year capital investment needs of public water systems that are eligible
to receive DWSRF monies - approximately 52,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-
for-profit non-community water systems. The survey reports infrastructure needs that are
required to protect public health, such as projects to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). As directed by the SDWA, EPA will use the results of the survey to
allocate DWSRF funds to the states and tribes beginning in FY 2014.
Source Water Protection
EPA will continue supporting state and local efforts to identify and address current and potential
sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts are integral to the sustainable
infrastructure effort because source water protection can reduce the need for expensive drinking
water treatment, along with related increased energy use and costs, which, in turn, can reduce the
cost of infrastructure. In F Y 2011, the Agency will:
• Continue to work across EPA and with other Federal agencies to increase awareness of
source water protection for better management of significant sources of contamination by
providing training, technical assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and
localities;
• Continue to work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and the multi-
partner Source Water Collaborative to encourage broad-based efforts directed at
encouraging actions at the state and local level to address sources of contamination
identified in source water assessments;
• Continue to support source water protection efforts by providing training, technical
assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and localities, and facilitating the
adoption of Geographic Information System (GIS) databases to support local decision-
making; and
• Continue working with states and other stakeholders to characterize current and future
pressures on water availability, variability and sustainability (WAYS) in the face of
climate change.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC Program safeguards current and future drinking water from the underground injection
of contaminants. The UIC Program is responsible for regulating the construction, operation,
permitting, and closure of injection wells that place fluids underground for storage or disposal.
In FY 2011 the Agency will:
• Direct national UIC program efforts to protect underground sources of drinking water
(USDW) by establishing priorities, developing guidance, measuring program results,
administering the UIC Grants;
513
-------
• Support a database for the UIC program. Specifically, EPA will implement the UIC
database through orientation and training of users and leveraging opportunities to reach
users through their national association. The Agency will continue activities to work
with the states to fully populate the UIC database, targeted to include 68 UIC programs
and 500,000 wells by 2012. EPA will support mapping of each state's data for initial
submissions and transition from paper reporting to electronic reporting for states that pass
Quality Assurance/Quality Control parameters;
• Expand permitting associated with disposal of wastes for energy extraction to keep pace
with the nation's burgeoning energy exploration and development. By FY 2011, U.S.
energy production is expected to grow by almost nine percent from FY 2006 levels,
according to the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Energy Information Administration;
• Manage the regulation of potential new waste streams that will use underground
injection, including residual waste from desalination and other drinking water treatment
processes;
• Work in concert with the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, the Department of Energy,
other Federal Agencies, and State co-regulators as necessary to ensure that wells injecting
carbon dioxide do not endanger USDWs; and
• Carry out responsibilities in permitting current and future geologic sequestration (GS) of
carbon dioxide projects. FY 2011 funding for carbon sequestration work is increased to
$3.7million. Activities planned for FY 2011 include:
o Complete development of the rule and supporting documents (i.e., technical
support documents, guidance documents, a response to comments document, and
implementation materials) for the GS of carbon dioxide recovered from emissions
of power plants and other facilities;
o Analyze data collected through DOE pilot projects and industry efforts to inform
the regulatory development process;
o Coordinate with national laboratories conducting research on GS (including
modeling, USDW protection, and site-specific studies on ground water and
drinking water issues related to GS);
o Engage states and stakeholders through meetings, workshops, public outreach,
and other avenues, as appropriate; and
o Provide technical assistance to states that provide permits for GS projects.
• Continue work with the Office of Research and Development to understand key issues,
identify knowledge gaps, and answer complex technical questions on GS in order to
ensure USDWs are not placed at risk;
• Review and revise the UIC Grant Allocation Funding Model to account for the GS well
class definitions, national Class V inventories, and primacy; and
514
-------
• In FY 2011, EPA is requesting an additional $1.1 million to work with states and regions
implementing UIC regulations for GS. This includes completing guidance to implement
the rule (e.g., monitoring, modeling, and Area of Review determinations), training permit
writers to review complex data, and communicating that there is a protective program in
place for GS wells.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal
(HPPG), addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix A).
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
People receiving
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based standards
per million dollars
spent to manage the
national drinking water
program.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
131,000
Units
People/Million
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
have undergone a
sanitary survey within
the past three years
(five years for
outstanding
performance.)
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
88
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
CWSs
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
89.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of person
months during which
community water
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
97.2
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Months
515
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
systems provide
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based standards.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of the
population in Indian
country served by
community water
systems that receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based drinking
water standards
FY 2009
Target
87
FY 2009
Actual
81.2
FY 2010
Target
87
FY2011
Target
87
Units
Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Population
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches including
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
92.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
91
Units
Percent
Population
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,875.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,116.0) This increase will enable EPA to work with the states to implement UIC
regulations for GS of carbon dioxide including: completing guidance, training permit
writers, and providing communication and outreach as part of the Clean Energy and
Climate Change Initiative.
• (+$250.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/web conferencing capabilities are
516
-------
necessary. Funds will support the creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity.
• (-$119.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$18.0) This reflects a realignment of the Agency's IT and telecommunications
resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to
the IT/Data Management program.
• (-0.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's Workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction realigns funds
to support Clean Energy, Climate Change, and Children's Health activities.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA.
517
-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
518
-------
Marine Pollution
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,064.7
$13,064.7
44.0
FY2010
Enacted
$13,397.0
$13,397.0
44.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,590.0
$13,590.0
44.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$193.0
$193.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The goals of the marine pollution programs are to ensure marine ecosystem protection by
controlling point-source and vessel discharges, managing dredged material and ocean dumping,
developing regional and international collaborations, monitoring ocean and coastal waters, and
managing other marine issues, such as marine debris, invasive species, sustainable ports, and the
marine transportation system. EPA will integrate its management of the oceans and coasts
across Federal agencies and with state, Tribal and local management.
Major areas of effort include:
• Developing and implementing regulations and technical guidance to control pollutants
from vessel operational discharges and issuing permits for materials to be dumped in
ocean waters.
• Designating, monitoring, and managing ocean dumping sites and implementing
provisions of the National Dredging Policy.
• Strengthening our knowledge of the oceans and coasts by operating the Ocean Survey
Vessel (OSV) Bold to monitor coastal and ocean waters. This includes supporting ocean
disposal site management and conducting baseline and trends assessments (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone, climate change indicators, and coral reefs).
• Participating in international marine protection programs with other Federal agencies
through negotiations of international standards that address vessel-related sources of
aquatic invasive species, harmful antifoulants, operational discharges from vessels,
dumping of wastes at sea, and marine debris.
• Working with a wide variety of stakeholders to develop and implement ecosystem-based
management tools, strategies, and plans for coastal ecosystems in order to restore and
maintain the health of coastal aquatic communities on a priority basis, including
promotion of dredged material management in a watershed context.
519
-------
See http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/index.httnl for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Coastal and ocean waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the nation. To
protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis, EPA will actively support
implementation of the National Ocean Policy by working with states, tribes, interstate agencies,
and others on enhancing the quality of our valuable coastal and ocean resources and by
implementing sustainable marine and land use practices. The health of ocean and coastal waters,
as well as progress toward meeting strategic targets, will be tracked through periodic issuance of
National Coastal Condition reports, which are a cooperative project with other Federal agencies,
and using the OSV Bold to improve our knowledge of our oceans and coasts. Key FY 2011
actions include:
Controlling Vessel Operational Discharges
• Develop management practices and associated performance standards for discharges
incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels.
• Continue support of implementation and reissuance of the Clean Water Act Vessel
General Permit.
• Continue to participate in site visits and the review of clean up plans for individual Navy
and Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects.
• Continue to coordinate and support the U.S. Coast Guard activities to develop and
implement ballast water discharge standards.
• Continue to participate on U.S. delegation to the Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop
international standards and guidance under MARPOL (the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) and other IMO Conventions addressing
operational discharges from ships.
• Continue assessing program success in reducing sewage discharges from vessels and
enhancement of controls for sewage discharges from vessels.
• Continue coordinating a consistent national approach for the designation of no discharge
zones for vessel sewage.
• Continue evaluating the environmental impacts of sewage and graywater discharges from
cruise ships.
520
-------
Managing the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSAVOcean Dumping
Management Program (including Dredged Material)
Monitor active dredged material ocean dump sites to ensure achievement of environmentally
acceptable conditions, as reflected in Site Management Plans:
• On an annual basis, EPA Regional Offices will determine whether dredged material
ocean dump sites are achieving environmentally acceptable conditions, as defined by
each individual Site Management Plan. Corrective actions will be taken by the
appropriate parties should a site not achieve acceptable conditions.
• As co-chair of the National Dredging Team, EPA will continue working with the Army
Corps of Engineers and EPA Regional Offices to create a tracking system for beneficial
use of dredged materials (as an alternative to dumping in ocean or coastal waters).
• Continue working with other interested agencies and the international community on the
issue of carbon sequestration by ocean fertilization and addressing any requests for
carbon sequestration in the sub-seabed or by ocean fertilization, including any required
permitting under MPRSA.
• Continue working to ensure that U.S. policy and procedures regarding ocean dumping are
consistent with the London Convention of 1972 and 1996 London Protocol.
• Continue managing the ocean dumping vessels database which is used for determining
compliance with a general permit under MPRSA for ocean dumping of vessels in the
United States.
Monitoring and Assessment
During FY 2011, the OSVBoldwift continue to support the following types of activities:
• Collection of environmental data from several offshore areas for use in the designation of
dredged material disposal sites (such as in Long Island Sound), periodic environmental
monitoring of the 65 active ocean disposal sites, monitoring offshore waste disposal sites
or wastewater outfalls, and monitoring of significantly impacted or important coastal
waters such as the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone and Florida coral reefs.
Reducing Marine Debris
• Work with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
(EVIDCC) to implement an action plan for assessing and reducing marine debris in
response to the 2008 IMDCC Report to Congress.
• Lead an EPA workgroup tasked with developing a comprehensive approach to address
the types, sources, movement, and impacts of marine debris.
521
-------
Interagency Collaborations for Ocean and Coastal Protection
EPA will continue to participate in the implementation of the objectives laid out in the
Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force in 2009. The National Oceans Policy and the Framework
for Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning strengthen the work that the Federal government
conducts with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to protect vital resources in our oceans,
coasts, and the Great Lakes. The Policy will help EPA and the rest of the Federal family to
leverage information and sound science to promote a healthy environment and a healthy
economy. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CSMP) will help EPA achieve its goals for clean
and safe water, especially for its geographic programs for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay,
Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay and the 28 estuaries that make up the National Estuary
Program. The proposed geographic scope of CSMP extends inland to the mean high water line,
and includes inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes settings. By bringing
together all relevant Federal government datasets pertaining to interactions and impacts across
the land-sea boundary, CMSP provides an important new tool for implementing EPA programs
and those of other Federal agencies. EPA also will:
• Participate on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force to address new issues and problems arising
with coral reefs and to expand efforts to reduce stresses on reefs from rising water
temperatures, vessel discharges, and ocean acidification.
• Continue participation on the Committee on Marine Transportation System (CMTS)
regarding environmental issues such as dredging and ship channel configuration, as well
as reducing pollutant sources during operations and cargo handling. The CMTS is a
cabinet-level committee and has an established partnership amongst 18 different Federal
agencies.
• Continue participation on an interagency working group tasked to review and make
recommendations in a report to Congress on best management practices for the storage
and disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the Federal Government.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of active
dredged material ocean
dumping sites that will
have achieved
environmentally
acceptable conditions
(as reflected in each
site's management
plan).
FY 2009
Target
98
FY 2009
Actual
99
FY 2010
Target
98
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent Sites
522
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$177.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$16.0) This reflects an increase to support marine ecosystem monitoring and
protection.
Statutory Authority:
Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Boating Act (PL 110-288);
CWA; CZARA of 1990; FIFRA; Liberty Ship Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1220, et seq.), MDRPRA of
2006; MPPRCA of 1987; MPRSA; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
Section 3516; NEPA, Section 102; NTS A of 1996; NAFTA; Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988;
OAPCA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SPA; TSCA; WRDA; Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.
523
-------
Surface Water Protection
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$200,635.0
$200,635.0
1,064.1
FY2010
Enacted
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
1,106.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$226,471.0
$226,471.0
1,129.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$17,845.0
$17,845.0
23.0
Program Project Description:
The Surface Water Protection program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly supports
efforts to protect, improve and restore the quality of our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. EPA
works with states and tribes to make continued progress toward the clean water goals identified
in EPA's Strategic Plan by implementing core clean water programs, including accelerating
innovations that implement programs on a watershed basis.
The Surface Water Protection program supports the Healthy Communities initiative which will
address pressing water quality challenges facing America's urban watersheds. The program will
target the Mississippi River Basin to demonstrate how effective implementation strategies and
enhanced partnerships can yield significant progress in addressing non-point source driven
pollution.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will focus its work with states, interstate agencies, tribes and others in key
areas of the National Water Program. The main components and requested funding levels are:
water quality standards and technology ($52 million), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) ($43 million), water monitoring ($24 million, including $5.1 million for the
Monitoring Initiative), Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ($29 million), watershed and
nonpoint source management ($39 million), sustainable infrastructure management ($19
million), water infrastructure grants management ($13 million), and CWA Section 106 program
management ($7 million). New in FY 2011 are programs for Community Water Priorities and
the Mississippi River Basin.
As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative, EPA will launch the Community Water Priorities
program to address issues related to urban waters. Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens,
excess nutrients, and contaminated sediments that result from sanitary sewer and combined sewer
overflows, polluted runoff from urban landscapes, and legacy contamination. Under this initiative,
EPA will assist communities, particularly underserved communities, in restoring urban waterways
and the surrounding land through partnerships with governmental and non-governmental
organizations. Areas of focus may include innovative civic engagement and public outreach,
524
-------
youth involvement, risk screening, environmental education, sustainable financing, technical
support and training, and development of an urban waters vision plan. The Agency also will
provide targeted technical assistance to showcase communities and small grant recipients to help
them achieve their water restoration and community engagement goals. Activities include
immediate support to on-the-ground projects, specialized expertise on sediment issues, and an
urban waters strategy and action plan. This new grant program will be funded under the
Environmental Programs and Management Appropriation under a grant authority in section 104 of
the Clean Water Act. It will be developed based on a pilot conducted in 2010 under the Targeted
Watershed Grants under the State and Tribal Assistance Grants Appropriation. The 2010 pilot
was competed to answer issues regarding urban water impairments and lack of community
engagement and how to best address water quality issues through capacity building activities
using a watershed approach.
EPA requests resources to establish a Mississippi River Basin program to address excessive
nutrient loadings that contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to
hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Working with the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and other
states within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, and other Federal agencies - in particular
with the Department of Agriculture (USD A) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - EPA will
help target efforts within critical watersheds to implement effective strategies that can yield
significant progress in addressing nonpoint source nutrient pollution. Specifically, EPA will
increase support of state efforts to design watershed plans in the Mississippi River Basin
watershed; promote sustainable agricultural practices; collaborate to leverage and focus the most
effective nutrient and sediment reduction practices; work with Federal and state partners to focus
wetland restoration and development; and support critical monitoring needs in the Basin to
inform decision-making. This initiative also will support other key goals outlined in the Hypoxia
Action Plan 2008, as well as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Governor's Action Plan II, that target
the reduction of nonpoint source nutrient pollution in the Mississippi watershed, including
investigating the economic costs of hypoxia and the benefits of nutrient reduction, and
developing key indicators of progress. This initiative will also support a grant program targeted
to the Mississippi River Basin to assist states, local communities and agricultural organizations
in developing and implementing strategies that will create results for the Mississippi River and
Gulf ecosystems.
EPA will continue to implement an Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan (IAP)
that was signed with the Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers on June 11,
2009, to significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal mining operations
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Final_MTM_MOU_6-11 -09.pdf). Sections 404 and
402 activities will include development of program guidance, permit reviews and technical
assistance. Based on its review in 2010 of existing regulatory authorities and procedures, EPA
will consider regulatory and/or policy modifications to better protect the environment and public
health from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining.
Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water
quality protection programs under the CWA. These criteria define which waters are clean and
which waters are impaired, and thereby serve as benchmarks for decisions about allowable
pollutant loadings into waterways. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information.
525
-------
In FY 2011, EPA requests an additional $2 million to complete funding requested in FY 2010 to
continue to support state and Tribal programs by providing scientific water quality criteria
information, which will include conducting scientific studies and developing or improving
criteria for nutrients, pathogens and chemical pollutants in ambient water. EPA will work with
state and Tribal partners to help them develop standards that are "approvable" under the CWA,
including providing advance guidance and technical assistance, where appropriate, before the
standards are formally submitted to EPA. EPA expects that 85 percent of state submissions will
be approvable in FY 2011.
Excessive nutrients continue to be one of the leading causes for impaired waters. Although some
progress has been made, much remains to be done. A key element to making progress is the
development of numerical nutrient water quality standards. However, many states lack the
technical and financial resources to develop them. EPA will continue to provide assistance to the
states to accelerate adoption of numerical nutrient standards and to support Federal
determinations or promulgations.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to implement and support the core water quality programs that
control point source discharges. The NPDES program requires point source dischargers to be
permitted and requires pretreatment programs to control discharges from industrial and other
facilities to the nation's wastewater treatment plants. EPA is working with states to structure the
permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis
and also recent increases in the scope of the program arising from court orders and
environmental issues. EPA also will focus on several other key strategic objectives for the
NPDES and effluent guideline programs:
• Conduct regional program assessments and permit quality reviews to ensure the health of
the NPDES program, continue to address workload concerns in permit issuance, focus
resources on priority permits that have the greatest benefit for water quality, encourage
trading and watershed-based permitting, and foster efficiency in permitting program
operations through the use of electronic and other streamlining tools. The foundation of
these efforts is to reinforce nationally the importance of strong science and the adherence
to the law.
• Collaborate with partner organizations to implement the Green Infrastructure Action
Strategy released in January 2008 to help incorporate green infrastructure solutions at the
local level to protect water quality using integrated wet weather management.
• Implement strategies to improve management of pretreatment programs. Strategies
include: pretreatment training for regions and states, including onsite and web-based and
self-directed courses; implementation of pretreatment program results-based measures
based on a pilot study evaluating nine draft results-based measures; a Measures
Handbook for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) finalized in FY 2010 to
discuss the environmental links between the regulation, their oversight activities, and
their watershed impact; and updated checklists and guidance for POTW program
development.
526
-------
• Issue the annual plan that describes the CWA-mandated review of industrial categories to
determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted.
• Respond to public comment and continue development of regulations for discharges from
airport deicing facilities, and also for aquatic protection at cooling water intakes.
• Continue development of regulatory options to control wastewater discharges from coal-
fired power plants.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to focus on a number of relatively new NPDES, effluent
guideline, and nonpoint source program areas. These areas of increased environmental concern
emphasize the need to engage the network of Federal, state, and local partners to take actions that
are needed to protect the environment.
• The Clean Water Act regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
were revised in 2003 and further revised in 2008 in response to a 2nd Circuit Court ruling.
This effort continues to evolve as a result of litigation. EPA expects to continue to
develop implementation guidance and work with states and tribes to fully implement the
CAFO rule to assure that all CAFOs that discharge waste obtain NPDES permit
coverage. EPA also will work with permitting authorities to identify which CAFOs need
to obtain permit coverage and provide the tools and information needed to prevent
discharges. In addition, EPA will monitor the number of facilities covered by stormwater
and CAFO permits.
• In response to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, EPA will conduct significant new
regulatory, permitting, modeling, reporting and planning efforts for the Agency.
Examples of these actions include the development of a stormwater regulation and the
development of revised CAFO implementation guidance and regulations. In addition,
EPA will continue to support states and EPA Regional Offices in effectively
implementing the NPDES program to improve the health of the watershed.
o The Agency is developing a rule to strengthen stormwater regulations, which
includes a set of provisions that are national in scope, while building a record
to support options for going beyond national requirements in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. The national rulemaking will propose requirements for
stormwater discharges from, at a minimum, newly developed and redeveloped
sites. As part of this effort, EPA will consider redefining the area subject to
Federal regulation. EPA also will consider imposing more stringent
requirements within the Chesapeake basin, such as: more extensively
redefining municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)-regulated areas,
establishing more stringent post-construction requirements, and applying these
requirements to smaller sites.
o The Agency intends to propose regulations for CAFOs to more effectively
address pollution reductions necessary to achieve the objectives of the TMDL
for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The CAFO rulemaking process may
527
-------
consider expanding the universe of CAFOs and requiring more stringent
standards for permits (e.g. better nutrient management planning) for CAFOs
in the Bay. Additionally, options for a streamlined designation process and
better off-site manure management may be considered for the Bay or
nationally.
• As a result of a 2006 court ruling, approximately 70,000 vessels that were previously
exempt from permitting are now covered by an NPDES permit. On December 18, 2008,
EPA issued a new NPDES general permit to regulate 26 types of discharges from vessels
operating in U.S. waters. EPA will develop tools and training to implement the vessel
permit, to review and approve state vessel permitting programs, and to provide outreach
to the regulated community. In addition, EPA is developing scientific protocols and
models to determine how to more effectively control the introduction of numerous
aquatic invasive species into our nation's waters from ballast water discharges. Ballast
water discharges have resulted in the introduction of numerous aquatic invasive species,
resulting in severe degradation of many ecosystems and billions of dollars of economic
damages.
• In late 2008, the National Academies of Sciences/National Research Council (NRC)
issued an assessment of the national stormwater program. EPA is engaged in data
collection and analysis to revise the stormwater regulation to better address pollutants
from stormwater to be consistent with NRC recommendations. Stormwater is a main
contributor of nutrients and sediments which are two of the top three pollutants impairing
waters in the U.S.
• As a result of a January 7, 2009 court ruling, EPA is required to issue permits to pesticide
applicators that discharge to waters of the U.S. EPA will issue and develop a precedent
setting general permit for the application of pesticides to waters of the U.S. EPA will
propose the permit in 2010 and finalize the permit in 2011. EPA must assist the 45
authorized states in developing their own general permits and assist in a national effort to
educate the pesticides application industry regarding how to comply with the new
permits. As a result, EPA will collect data, issue permits, and conduct inspections for a
large universe of pesticide applications. EPA also must develop and assist states in
implementing enforcement programs for pesticides. Pesticides that are applied to water—
or that enter water as a result of off-target application of specific pesticides—may be
highly toxic and may cause fish kills, die-offs of crabs, lobsters, bird deaths and human
illnesses.
• EPA will be reconsidering the 2006 NPDES regulations for water transfers to determine
how best to address adverse environmental impacts from water transfers. EPA will be
coordinating with other Federal agencies including USD A, US Army Corps of Engineers,
and Department of Interior on this effort.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue the Monitoring Initiative, begun in 2005, which includes
enhancements to state and interstate monitoring programs consistent with their monitoring
strategies, and collaboration on statistically-valid surveys of the nation's waters. In FY 2011,
528
-------
EPA, states, and tribes will collaborate to conduct field sampling for the wetlands baseline
survey to be completed and published in an FY 2013 report, and will be analyzing data from the
fifth statistically-valid survey of coastal waters to report trends in FY 2012. EPA, states, and
tribes also will prepare the second report on the condition of wadeable streams, which will track
changes since the baseline survey issued in 2006. This report will include a baseline assessment
of the condition of rivers nationally. A portion of the FY 2011 CWA Section 106 Monitoring
Initiative funds will be used for sampling and analysis for the second statistically-valid survey of
lakes nationwide, with a report scheduled in 2014.
In FY 2011, EPA will work closely with states as they continue to enhance their monitoring
programs. EPA stresses the importance of using statistical surveys to generate statewide
assessments, targeted monitoring to develop and evaluate local controls and the transmission of
water quality data to the national STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) warehouse using
the new Water Quality Exchange (WQX) protocol. The publicly accessible STORET Data
warehouse, using the Water Quality Exchange (WQX) framework, makes it easier for states,
tribes and other organizations to submit data directly and share water quality monitoring data
over the Internet. EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strategies appropriate to their
water quality programs and encourage tribes to provide data in a format accessible for storage in
EPA data systems.
EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of Federal, regional, state, and local monitoring
efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic scales, in a cost-
efficient and effective manner, so that scientifically defensible monitoring data is available to
address issues and problems at each of these scales. In addition, EPA will work with states and
other partners to address research and technical gaps related to sampling methods, analytical
approaches, and data management.
Development and implementation of TMDLs for 303(d) listed waterbodies is a critical tool for
meeting water quality restoration goals. TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental goals
and establish a pollutant budget, which is then implemented via permit requirements and through
local, state, and Federal watershed plans and programs. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to
encourage states to organize schedules for TMDLs to address all pollutants on an impaired
segment when possible. Where multiple impaired segments are clustered within a watershed,
EPA encourages states to organize restoration activities across the watershed (i.e., apply a
watershed approach). To assist in development of watershed TMDLs, EPA developed two tools:
Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs fwww. epa. gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/
draft_handbook.pdf) and a 'checklist' for developing mercury TMDLs where the source is
primarily atmospheric deposition: www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/document mercury tmdl
elements.pdf. To assist in developing TMDLs for waters impaired by stormwater-source
pollutants, EPA recently released two documents: 1) TMDLs to Stormwater Permits Draft
Handbook (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/stormwater/), and 2) Incorporating Green
Infrastructure Concepts into Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) (www.epa.gov/owow/
tmdl/stormwater/pdf/tmdllid fmal.pdf). For waters impaired by problems for which TMDLs
are not appropriate, EPA will work with partners to develop and implement activities and
watershed plans to restore these waters. Cumulatively, states and EPA have made significant
529
-------
progress in the developing and approving of TMDLs, and have completed more than 41,800 total
TMDLs through FY 2009.
Nonpoint source management is the integral piece to addressing most of the remaining water
quality problems and threats in the United States. Protection and restoration of water quality on
a watershed basis requires a careful assessment of the nature and sources of pollution, the
location and setting within the watershed, the relative influence on water quality, and the
amenability to preventive or control methods. In FY 2011, EPA will support efforts of states,
tribes, other Federal agencies, and local communities to develop and implement watershed-based
plans that successfully address all of these factors to enable impaired waters to be restored
through the national Nonpoint Source Program (Section 319) while also continuing to protect
those waters that are healthy.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to provide nonpoint source program leadership and technical
support to states, municipalities, watershed organizations and concerned citizens by:
• Creating, supporting, and promoting technical tools that states and tribes need to
accurately assess water quality problems and analyze and implement solutions.
• Continuing a Web-based tool to support watershed planning called Watershed Central.
The website includes a "wiki" - which is a Web tool designed to provide fast access to
locally provided information on watershed management. EPA will organize this
information, check it for accuracy, and promote access via the wiki and Watershed
Central website. In addition, EPA will add a component to Watershed Central
specifically for urban, underserved communities in support of the EPA's Community
Water Priorities program activities to promote information sharing within communities
(http://www.epa.gov/watershedcentral).
• Continuing to enhance accountability for results through the use of EPA's nonpoint
source program grants tracking system, which will continue to track all pollutant load
reductions achieved by each project. The system also will allow EPA to better track
waters fully restored by Section 319-funded projects by relating Section 319 project
information to other data management systems. EPA also will continue to track the
remediation of waterbodies that had been primarily impaired by nonpoint sources and
that were subsequently restored so that they may be removed from the Section 303(d) list
of impaired waters.
• Focusing on the development and dissemination of new tools to promote Low Impact
Development (LID), thereby preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution. LID is an
innovative, comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of
maintaining and enhancing the pre-development water quality and flow in urban and
developing watersheds. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html for more
information.
• Implementing the Healthy Watersheds strategy, in cooperation with states, academia, and
non-governmental organizations, that focuses on protection of the watersheds of healthy
530
-------
waters (as well as healthy components of other watersheds). This strategy will include
the publication of a guide to protect aquatic ecosystems, the publication of a detailed
Healthy Watersheds agenda with both short-term and long-term components, and
enhancement of EPA's recently established Healthy Watersheds Website,
www. epa. gov/heal thy watersheds, which is replete with tools for assessment of healthy
watersheds and implementation of approaches to maintain their health, as well as
information on successful state and local approaches that are already underway.
• Continuing coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that Federal
resources, including grants under Section 319 and Farm Bill funds, are managed in a
coordinated way to maximize water quality improvement in impaired waters and
protection in all others. Also, EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and other Federal agencies with land management
responsibilities to address water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring
National Forest System watersheds.
EPA will continue to implement its Sustainable Infrastructure Strategy and work with its partners
to facilitate the voluntary adoption of effective management practices by water sector utilities.
The framework for EPA's efforts will be built around the promotion of a series of Attributes of
Effectively Managed Utilities and Keys to Management Success, which are being promoted in
partnership with six major water and wastewater professional associations. These Attributes
define the outcomes that EPA and our partners believe all water utilities should strive to achieve
in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of their operations and infrastructure. In addition,
the Agency will work with other key partners such as local officials and academia to help
increase public understanding and support for sustaining the nation's water infrastructure.
One of the key components of the Agency's broader efforts to ensure long-term sustainable
water infrastructure is its water-efficiency labeling effort called WaterSense. WaterSense gives
consumers a reference tool to identify and select water-efficient products with the intent of
reducing national water and wastewater infrastructure needs by reducing demands and flows,
allowing for deferred or downsized capital projects. The Agency has issued voluntary
specifications for four water-efficient service categories (certification programs for irrigation
system auditors, designers, and installation and maintenance professionals) and three product
categories (residential High-Efficiency Toilets (HETs) and bathroom faucets and accessories,
and commercial urinals). In late 2009, the program also will release a new homes specification
that provides benchmark criteria for water-efficient new homes, designed to save water indoors
as well as outdoors. Product specifications include water efficiency as well as performance
criteria to ensure that products not only save water but also work as well as standard products in
the marketplace. Products may only bear the WaterSense label after being tested by an
independent laboratory to ensure that they meet WaterSense specifications.
In FY 2011, the Agency will release its first voluntary specification for residential showerheads
and for irrigation controllers. Additional specifications will be developed based on research
done and input gathered in FY 2010, including for pre-rinse spray valves and other water-using
products in the commercial sector. The Agency is considering other additional future product and
531
-------
service categories in areas including residential plumbing and irrigation, commercial kitchens,
and laboratories.
In less than four years, WaterSense has already become a national symbol for water efficiency
among utilities, plumbing manufacturers, and consumers. Awareness of the WaterSense label is
growing every day. At the end of FY 2009, close to 400 different models of high-efficiency
toilets had earned the label, and more than 1,400 faucet models and accessories had earned the
WaterSense label. In addition to working with manufacturers and retailers to deliver labeled
products to consumers, EPA continues to partner with utilities, irrigation professionals, and
community organizations to educate consumers on the benefits of switching to water-efficient
products. By the end of fiscal year 2009, the program had more than 1,500 partners, including
utilities from across the country that are adopting WaterSense as a key component of their water-
efficiency efforts.
The partners are a key to building a strong network of stakeholders across the Nation to build
awareness of the need for efficient use of water. EPA will continue to work with utilities to
incorporate WaterSense promotion as part of their broader conservation efforts, which include
behavioral changes as well. EPA will continue to ask our retail and distribution partners to stock
WaterSense labeled products and make it easy for their customers to find water-saving options.
EPA will employ articles, promotional material templates, and other cost-effective marketing
tactics to educate consumers and building managers about the availability of WaterSense labeled
products. By promoting this easily recognizable, consistent national brand, EPA hopes
WaterSense will make water-efficient products the clear and preferred choice among consumers
and facility managers.
Policy and oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs), which provide low
interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects, are
supported by this program. In managing the CWSRF, EPA continues to work with states to meet
several key objectives:
• Fund projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach to sustain
communities, encourage and support green infrastructure, and preserve and create jobs;
• Link projects to environmental results through the use of water quality and public health
data;
• Maintain the excellent fiduciary condition of the funds;
• Continue to support states' efforts in developing integrated priority lists to address
nonpoint source pollution, estuary protection, and wastewater projects; and
• Work with state and local partners to implement a sustainability policy including
management and pricing to encourage conservation and to provide adequate long-term
funding for future capital needs.
532
-------
In FY 2011, several states will voluntarily submit data and documents for review and potential
inclusion in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2012 Report to Congress. The CWNS
documents capital needs and compiles technical information for publicly-owned wastewater
collection and treatment facilities, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) control facilities,
stormwater management facilities, decentralized wastewater (septic) treatment systems, and
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control. CWNS data supports funding prioritization and
outreach activities as well as permitting and other watershed-based management activities.
The Agency also will provide oversight and support for Congress!onally mandated projects
related to water and wastewater infrastructure as well as management and oversight of grant
programs, such as the Section 106 grants, the U.S-Mexico Border program and the Alaska
Native Village program.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of high priority
EPA and state NPDES
permits (including
tribal) that are issued in
the fiscal year.
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
144
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of TMDLs
that are established or
approved by EPA
[Total TMDL] on a
schedule consistent
with national policy
(cummulative). [A
TMDL is a technical
plan for reducing
pollutants in order to
attain water quality
standards. The terms
"approved" and
"established" refer to
the completion and
approval of the TMDL
itself]
FY 2009
Target
38,978
FY 2009
Actual
41,866
FY 2010
Target
44,560
FY2011
Target
47,100
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of waters
assessed using
statistically valid
surveys.
FY 2009
Target
65
FY 2009
Actual
65
FY 2010
Target
82
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Waters
533
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of submissions
of new or revised water
quality standards from
States and Territories
that are approved by
EPA.
FY 2009
Target
85
FY 2009
Actual
93.2
FY 2010
Target
85
FY2011
Target
85
Units
Percent
Submissions
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Loading (pounds) of
pollutants removed per
program dollar
expended.
FY 2009
Target
368
FY 2009
Actual
368
FY 2010
Target
371
FY2011
Target
377
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
2,270
FY 2009
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809
FY2011
Target
2,910
Units
Segments
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA
funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4,085.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,853.07 +12.5 FTE) This reflects an increase for targeted technical assistance to assist
underserved communities in restoring urban waterways for the Community Water
Priorities program. This includes 12.5 FTE and $1,650.0 in associated payroll to manage
the program. In addition, a portion of the increase will provide a plain language Web
presence and two Web 2.0 tools to demonstrate the value of access to information in
underserved communities. These tools will allow communities to share information and
collaborate on water quality issues.
• (+$3,782.07 +15.0 FTE) This funding supports new work in the upper Mississippi River
Basin. Funds will support the applicable nonpoint source control recommendations of the
Nutrients Innovations Task Group and Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. This includes $1,986.0 in associated payroll and 15.0 FTE.
534
-------
• (+$5,500.0) This increase reflects grants for the Community Water Priorities program to
address water quality challenges in urban watersheds and to build the capacity of
disadvantaged communities through projects that revitalize these watersheds.
• (-$1,094.07 -4.1 FTE) This reflects a redirection of Mountaintop Mining resources for the
Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan from Surface Water Protection to the
Wetlands program project. This change includes associated payroll of-$525.0 and -4.1
FTE. Intensive measures were needed in FY 2010 but workload will stabilize in FY 2011.
• (-$730.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the
Agency's travel footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$250.0) This decrease reflects a redirection of resources to the Research Human Health
and Ecosystems program which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical
toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. Various programs have
contributed to maintaining this database.
• (+$2,000.0) This increase will complete funding requested in 2010 for important work to
reduce nutrients and to improve water quality.
• (-$51.07 -0.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's Workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction
realigns funds to support Clean Energy, Climate Change, and Children's Health
activities.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
535
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Inspector General
Resource Summary Table 537
Program Projects in IG 537
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations 538
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 539
536
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Budget A uthority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Dollars
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$40,605.1
$1,767.6
$42,372.7
232.4
FY2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
296.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
296.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$855.0
$855.0
0.0
Bill Language: Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, [$44,791,000]$45,646,000, to remain available
until September 30, [2011J2012. (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010)
Program Projects in IG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Recovery Act Resources
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$40,605.1
$40,605.1
$1,767.6
$42,372.7
FY2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$855.0
$855.0
$855.0
537
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
538
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$42,372.7
$40,605.1
$1,767.6
$10,314.2
$52,686.9
293.5
FY2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0
$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8
FY 2011
IG
Request
$54,791.0
$54,791.0
$0.0
$9,975.0
$64,766.0
361.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
$0.0
$10,156.0
$55,802.0
361.8
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$855.0
$855.0
$0.0
$181.0
$1,036.0
0.0
Program/Project Description:
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative services
and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by
identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor operations, and by
promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Agency's programs.
OIG activities add value and enhance public trust by providing the Agency, the public, and
Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help management identify and
resolve risks and challenges, opportunities for savings, and implement actions for safeguarding
EPA resources and accomplishing EPA's environmental goals. OIG activities also prevent and
detect fraud in EPA programs and operations, including financial fraud, contract lab fraud, and
cyber crime. In addition, the EPA Inspector General serves as the IG for the U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The Recovery Act provided the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) $20 million in additional Budget Authority in FY 2009 available for obligation
through FY 2012.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health
risks by helping to improve program operations, save taxpayer dollars, and identify and resolve
major management challenges. In FY 2011, the OIG will continue focusing on areas associated
with risk, fraud, and waste, and will make recommendations to improve operating efficiency
leading to greater transparency and the cost effective attainment of EPA's strategic goals and
positive environmental impacts. The OIG plans to examine issues related to grants and contracts,
homeland security, internal controls/risk assessment, enforcement, program management,
539
-------
measurement data verification, project management, effective resource management, research
and follow-up on OIG recommendations.
Audits
Audits will be focused in five areas: (1) assistance agreements and contracts; (2) financial
statement audits and other audits of Agency financial management; (3) risk assessment, internal
controls, and program performance; (4) forensic audits of EPA grantees and contractors, and (5)
efficiencies in Agency operations. Planned work will focus on:
• unliquidated grant obligations;
• justification for, and oversight of, subcontracts;
• prevention of cost overruns and project delays;
• Agency oversight of Recovery Act funds;
• maximization of fixed price competitive contract awards;
• Agency oversight of interagency agreements;
• grantee and contractor compliance with grant and contract terms and conditions;
• identification of cost efficiencies in the Agency' s infrastructure;
• workforce planning and utilization;
• internal and external network traffic management practices;
• progress completing the Data Standards Corrective Action Plan;
• the Agency's new Financial Management System and Facility Access Systems;
• the Agency' s Quality Management Program;
• the Agency's risk assessment process and the allocation of resources;
• use of program performance measurement to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
A significant portion of audit resources will be devoted to mandated work assessing the financial
statements of EPA as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act, the information security
practices of EPA required by the Federal Information Security Management Act, and financial
audits of costs claimed by recipients of EPA assistance agreements conducted pursuant to the
Single Audit Act.
Evaluations
Evaluations are conducted through five product lines: (1) air and research; (2) Superfund;
(3) water and enforcement; (4) cross-media, and (5) special reviews. Specific areas of evaluation
will include evaluation of:
• integration of sustainability criteria in all Agency programs and activities;
• various Agency Recovery Act activities and projects;
• use of interagency and assistance agreements to augment the Agency's research mission;
• Agency oversight of State and Regional penalty assessments;
• Agency oversight of investigations and reviews that document environmental conditions
at Brownfield sites;
• the effectiveness of quality assurance in the Brownfields program;
540
-------
• the Agency's Environmental Results Program;
• the Agency's oversight of the Clean Air Act Settlement Agreements;
• efforts by the agency to monitor, assess, and act on threats from the production, use, and
disposal of nanomaterials;
• how the Agency responds to emerging trends;
• potential approaches for leveraging, controlling, and allocating Agency program
resources to reduce duplication;
• the Agency's organizational methods and policies;
• the Agency's program data and performance results.
Investigations
The majority of investigative work is reactive in nature. The OIG will prioritize its work by
evaluating allegations to determine which investigations may have the greatest impact on
Agency funds, the integrity of EPA programs and operations, and produce the greatest deterrent
effect. Investigations assist EPA in meeting its strategic goals by helping to protect the Agency's
scarce resources from fraudulent or criminal activities, so that they can be used to protect the
environment and human health.
The OIG will conduct investigations and seek prosecution of criminal activity and serious
misconduct in EPA programs and operations that undermine Agency integrity and create
imminent environmental risks as well as seek civil judgments to obtain recovery and restitution
of financial losses. Investigations will focus on: (1) fraudulent financial activities in the award,
performance, and payment of funds under EPA contracts, grants, and other assistance
agreements to individuals, companies, and organizations; (2) intrusions into and attacks against
EPA's network, as well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property or
sensitive data; (3) infrastructure/terrorist threat; (4) criminal activity or serious misconduct
affecting EPA program integrity or involving EPA personnel which could undermine or erode
the public trust; (5) laboratory fraud relating to payments made by EPA for compromised
environmental testing data and results that could undermine the bases for EPA decision-making,
regulatory compliance, and enforcement actions; and (6) release of, unauthorized access to, or
use of sensitive or proprietary information.
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up
reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations to determine if appropriate actions
have been taken and intended improvements have been achieved. This process will serve as a
means for keeping EPA leadership apprised of accomplishments, opportunities for needed
corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from OIG operations.
Also, as directed by the IG Act, the OIG 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.
541
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Environmental and
business actions taken
for improved
performance or risk
reduction.
FY 2009
Target
318
FY 2009
Actual
272
FY 2010
Target
334
FY2011
Target
334
Units
Actions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
* Environmental and
business
recommendations or
risks identified for
corrective action.
FY 2009
Target
903
FY 2009
Actual
983
FY 2010
Target
903
FY2011
Target
903
Units
Recommendations
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Return on the annual
dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG
budget, from audits
and investigations.
FY 2009
Target
120
FY 2009
Actual
150
FY 2010
Target
120
FY2011
Target
120
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
* Criminal, civil,
administrative, and
fraud prevention
actions.
FY 2009
Target
80
FY 2009
Actual
95
FY 2010
Target
75
FY2011
Target
80
Units
Actions
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA
funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$873.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$14.0) This change reflects a realignment of the Agency's IT and telecommunications
resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to
the IT/Data Management program.
• (-$4.0) This change reflects a realignment of OIG contract resources between the IG and
Superfund appropriations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; Reports Consolidation Act;
Single Audit Act; CFO Act; GMRA; PRIA; RCRA; FFMIA; FISMA; FQPA.
542
-------
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
$64,766,000 ($54,791,000 Inspector General; $9,975,000 Superfund Transfer);
• the aggregate request in the President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is
$55,802,000 ($45,646,000 Inspector General; $10,156,000 Superfund Transfer);
• the portion of the aggregate request in the President's Budget needed for OIG training is
$875,000; and
• the portion of the aggregate request in the President's Budget needed to support the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is $155,000.
Certification from the Acting Inspector General:
"I certify as the Acting IG of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have
requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2011."
The OIG's requested budget for FY 2011 represents a $10,000,000 increase over the OIG's
portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $64,766,000). The additional funding is
necessary as a result of the following:
In the FY 2010 Enacted Budget, EPA received: 1) $1,410,920,000 increase for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund; 2) $557,971,000 increase in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund;
and 3) $475,000,000 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The State Revolving funds will
provide grants to states for water infrastructure projects. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
will use funds to support projects targeting the most significant problems of the Great Lakes.
Grants funds have been long identified as areas of high risk and management challenges in their
potential for: misapplication from the intended environmental purpose; lack of accountability
and potential for fraud. To help ensure essential transparency and the greatest public
environmental benefit, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) will provide oversight of how these
funds are used and whether desired results are achieved through financial, forensic, and
performance audits of EPA's State Revolving Fund programs, grants, interagency agreements,
and cooperative agreements. The OIG will also conduct assistance agreement investigations of
these same areas.
This specific increase in EPA's 2010 budget for grants, without a specific corresponding increase
in OIG audits and investigations, renders these funds vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse
without the appropriate oversight to ensure they will be accounted for and applied to the intended
purpose.
The Acting Inspector General has submitted comments setting forth the Acting Inspector
General's conclusion that this Budget's request for the Office of Inspector General "would
substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office" under
Section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. A copy of the Acting
Inspector General's official statement to the Director of OMB is included in the Appendix
section of the congressional justification.
543
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities
Resource Summary Table 545
Program Projects in B&F 545
Program Area: Homeland Security 546
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 547
Program Area: Operations and Administration 549
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 550
544
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$37,842.7
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$37,001.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$40,001.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,000.0
0.0
Bill Language: Buildings and Facilities
For construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities of, or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, [$37,001,000] $40,001,000, to
remain available until expended[, of which up to $500,000 shall be made available for
preliminary planning and design of a high-performance green building to consolidate the
multiple offices and research facilities of the Environmental Protection Agency in Las Vegas,
Nevada]. (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2010.)
Program Projects in B & F
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,559.9
$29,282.8
$29,282.8
$37,842.7
FY2010
Enacted
$8,070.0
$28,931.0
$28,931.0
$37,001.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$8,070.0
$31,931.0
$31,931.0
$40,001.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
545
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
546
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,648.8
$587.0
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$16,999.3
5.1
FY2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,391.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,249.0
3.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$22.0
$1.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program ensures that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure and that certain
physical security measures are in place in the event of an emergency to help safeguard staff and
protect the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets. This program also includes protecting
national security information through construction and build-out of Secure Access Facilities
(SAFs) and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), protecting the personnel
security clearance process, and protecting any classified information. The work under the
Building and Facilities appropriation supports larger physical security improvements to leased
and owned space.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to implement the Smart Card program through upgrading
or replacing physical access control systems and the ancillary infrastructure at five to eight EPA
facilities nationwide. Additionally, EPA will continue installing blast resistant glass materials or
procuring and installing laminated glass windows at the Agency's Security Level 3 and 4
facilities, as well as facilities housing critical infrastructures. EPA also will continue to mitigate
vulnerabilities, in accordance with the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service,
Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities guidelines, at its 191 facilities nationwide.
Finally, the Agency will ensure that new construction, new leases, and major modernization
projects meet Federal physical security requirements, expand or realign existing laboratories for
homeland security support activities, and protect critical infrastructures.
547
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
548
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
549
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
Buildings and Facilities (B&F) appropriation activities include design, construction, repair, and
improvement projects for buildings occupied by EPA, whether Federally owned or leased.
Construction and alteration projects costing more than $85 thousand must use B&F funding.
Deferring maintenance often increases the eventual cost of maintenance projects and may worsen
other repair issues.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The resources requested are used to maintain EPA's research facilities, most being 30 or more
years old, alter research facilities to meet legislated research requirements and other
programmatic needs, and fund facility-related construction. EPA's inventory includes WWII era
buildings that continue to deteriorate with time. Good stewardship practices ensure physical
conditions, functionality, and research capabilities are not compromised. Additionally, the
Agency applies these funds to meet Federal facility environmental objectives related to energy
efficiency (annual energy use reductions of three percent per year through FY 2015), water
conservation (annual water use reductions of two percent per year through FY 2020), advanced
metering, storm water management, upgrading 15 percent of EPA's existing real estate portfolio
to meet the standards of "high performance sustainable" green building standards by FY 2015,
and reducing fossil fuel use in new buildings. These requirements are set out in Executive
550
-------
Orders (EO) 13514 and 13423 \ the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). These efforts also improve operating efficiency and sustain
safe work environments.
EPA's efforts will include implementing the findings and recommendations of comprehensive
facility audits (e.g. safety, health, environmental management, energy, and water usage). EPA
will further emphasize improving operating efficiency and encouraging the use of new, advanced
technologies and energy sources. EPA will direct resources towards acquiring and adopting
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and implementing energy load reduction
strategies.
In an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint, EPA is promoting green travel and
conferencing by equipping more facilities with video conferencing capability.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the
Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,000.0) This increase provides additional funding to meet the requirements of EO
13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,
which expands upon EO 13423, and requires the Agency to plan for Greenhouse Gas
emission reduction, which would require substantial investment of B&F funding to
retrofit EPA buildings and infrastructure, and increase usage of green power.
• (+$2,000.0) The Agency is working to reduce its carbon footprint by promoting green
travel practices and moving routine meetings to a Web or video conference format. In
order to be successful, strategic investments in video/Web conferencing capabilities are
necessary. Funds will support creation of multi-use conference rooms in selected
locations, as well as the needed internet capacity. This initiative will allow EPA to
continue meeting the three percent annual energy reduction targets set for Federal
facilities in compliance with Executive Order 13423.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive
Orders 10577, 12598, 13150, 13423, and 13514; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil
and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive
63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
1 Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo 13 514A Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance', and http://www. fedcenter. gov/programs/eo 13423A Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management.
551
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Superfund
Resource Summary Table 554
Program Projects in Superfund 554
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 558
Radiation: Protection 559
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations 561
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 562
Program Area: Compliance 566
Compliance Monitoring 567
Program Area: Enforcement 569
Environmental Justice 570
Superfund: Enforcement 572
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement 576
Criminal Enforcement 578
Enforcement Training 581
Forensics Support 582
Program Area: Homeland Security 584
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 585
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 586
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 589
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 591
Exchange Network 592
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 595
Information Security 596
IT / Data Management 598
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 603
Alternative Dispute Resolution 604
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 605
Program Area: Operations and Administration 606
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 607
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 610
Acquisition Management 612
Human Resources Management 614
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 616
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 618
Human Health Risk Assessment 619
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 623
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 624
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 630
Research: Sustainability 631
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup 633
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal 634
552
-------
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness 637
Superfund: Federal Facilities 639
Superfund: Remedial 644
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies 651
553
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Dollars
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,385,412.2
$572,908.2
$1,958,320.4
3,106.5
FY2010
Enacted
$1,306,541.0
$1,306,541.0
3,193.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,293,060.0
$1,293,060.0
3,180.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($13,481.0)
($13,481.0)
-12.9
Bill Language: Hazardous Substance Superfund
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections lll(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611) [$1,306,541,000]$1,291,560,000, to remain available
until expended, consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund on September 30,
[2009] 2010, as authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) and up to [$1,306,541,000]$1,293,060,000 as a payment from general
revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of
SARA, as amended: Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated to
other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111 (a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated under this heading, [$9,9 75,000]$10,156,000 shall be paid to the " ^Office
of Inspector General" appropriation to remain available until September 30, [2011] 2012, and
[$26,834,000]$24,527,000 shall be paid to the "Science and Technology" appropriation to
remain available until September 30, [2011] 2012. (Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)
Program Projects in Superfund
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Air Toxics and Quality
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Compliance
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,299.2
$10,314.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,495.0
$9,975.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,593.0
$10,156.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$98.0
$181.0
554
-------
Program Project
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and
Response
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
Exchange Network
FY 2009
Actuals
$22.0
$129.3
$1,265.2
$1,416.5
$624.6
$172,412.0
$9,265.5
$167.2
$9,058.1
$776.9
$2,695.9
$195,000.2
$177.0
$1,590.0
$1,767.0
$8,777.3
$8,933.2
$37,768.9
$55,479.4
$1,203.6
$58,450.0
$7.3
$922.4
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0
$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
$0.0
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0
$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0
$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$1,220.0
$1,220.0
$806.0
$176,532.0
$10,909.0
$0.0
$8,142.0
$0.0
$2,501.0
$198,890.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,011.0
$5,838.0
$29,425.0
$42,274.0
$1,194.0
$43,468.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$4.0
$4.0
$11.0
$3,864.0
$339.0
$0.0
$76.0
($899.0)
$51.0
$3,442.0
($198.0)
($1,562.0)
($1,760.0)
($3,787.0)
($3,788.0)
($3,731.0)
($11,306.0)
$0.0
($13,066.0)
$0.0
$0.0
555
-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
FY 2009
Actuals
$929.7
$1,013.2
$17,266.1
$18,279.3
$1,369.4
$716.7
$2,086.1
$45,071.8
$1,837.0
$6,056.1
$21,245.8
$74,210.7
$2,932.5
$23,521.1
$5,475.1
$24,154.9
$130,294.3
$3,776.4
$19,010.1
$96.0
$224,789.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,433.0
$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0
$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0
$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0
$3,404.0
$21,191.0
$73.0
$202,330.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,433.0
$728.0
$16,720.0
$17,448.0
$913.0
$752.0
$1,665.0
$41,888.0
$3,749.0
$8,412.0
$22,588.0
$76,637.0
$3,318.0
$24,337.0
$7,081.0
$26,934.0
$138,307.0
$3,350.0
$19,069.0
$0.0
$202,784.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
($57.0)
($367.0)
($424.0)
$20.0
$6.0
$26.0
($2,412.0)
$352.0
$113.0
$102.0
($1,845.0)
$373.0
($347.0)
$1,501.0
($556.0)
($874.0)
($54.0)
($2,122.0)
($73.0)
$454.0
556
-------
Program Project
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Recovery Act Resources
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,934.8
$32,761.5
$669,293.0
$6,575.0
$106.7
$106.7
$943,460.2
$572,908.2
$1,958,320.4
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$0.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$9,776.0
$31,543.0
$605,438.0
$5,920.0
$0.0
$0.0
$855,461.0
$1,293,060.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$144.0
($562.0)
$0.0
($655.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($619.0)
($13,481.0)
557
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
558
-------
Radiation: Protection
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Radiation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,962.0
$2,484.4
$2,299.2
$14,745.6
85.8
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$11,439.0
$2,127.0
$2,593.0
$16,159.0
88.6
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$144.0
$32.0
$98.0
$274.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program addresses potential radiation risks found at some Superfund and hazardous waste
sites. Through this program, EPA ensures that Superfund site clean-up activities reduce and/or
mitigate the health and environmental risk of radiation to safe levels. In addition, the program
makes certain that appropriate clean-up technologies and methods are adopted to effectively and
efficiently reduce the health and environmental hazards associated with radiation problems
encountered at these sites, some of which are located near at-risk communities. Finally, the
program ensures that appropriate technical assistance is provided on remediation approaches for
National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA's National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) and
Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) will continue to provide
analytical support to manage and mitigate radioactive releases and exposures. These nationally
recognized laboratories routinely provide analytical and technical support for the characterization
and cleanup of Superfund and Federal Facility sites. Laboratory support focuses on providing
high quality data to support Agency decisions at sites across the country. Both of these
laboratories also provide specialized technical support on-site, including field measurements
using unique tools and capabilities. In addition, they both provide data evaluation and
assessment, document review, and field support through ongoing fixed and mobile capability.
Thousands of radiochemical and mixed waste analyses are performed annually at NAREL on a
variety of samples from contaminated sites. NAREL is EPA's only laboratory with this in-house
mixed waste analytical capability. R&IE also provides field-based analytical capability for
screening and identifying radiological contaminants at NPL and non-NPL sites across the
country, including mobile scanning in-situ analysis, and air sampling equipment and expert
personnel.
559
-------
EPA developed several outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this
program in response to OMB recommendations. The measures all have baseline data and some
historical data which provide a benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets.
Performance Targets:
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish its FY 2011 strategic plan
goal of protecting public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated
radioactive waste and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in Radiation Response
Preparedness Programs under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$98.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986.
560
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
561
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$42,372.7
$40,605.1
$1,767.6
$10,314.2
$52,686.9
293.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0
$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8
FY 2011
IG
Request
$54,791.0
$54,791.0
$0.0
$9.975.0
$64,766.0
361.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
$0.0
$10,156.0
$55,802.0
361.8
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$855.0
$855.0
$0.0
$181.0
$1,036.0
0.0
Program/Project Description:
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative services
and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended, by
identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor operations, and by
promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Agency's Superfund
program. OIG activities add value, promote transparency and enhance public trust by providing
the Agency, the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help
management identify and resolve risks and challenges, opportunities for savings, and implement
actions for safeguarding EPA resources and accomplishing EPA's environmental goals. OIG
activities also prevent and detect fraud in EPA programs and operations, including financial
fraud and contract lab fraud. The Recovery Act provided the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
$20 million in additional Budget Authority in FY 2009 available for obligation through FY 2012.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health
risks and save taxpayer dollars by helping to improve Superfund program operations and identify
and resolve major management challenges. In FY 2011, the OIG will focus on long term safety
at Superfund sites, environmental data used to support actions and reported results, Superfund
claims, amounts reported in financial statements, and areas associated with risk, fraud, and
waste. The OIG will further identify high risk areas and make recommendations to mitigate
those risks and improve operating efficiency leading to positive environmental impacts and the
cost effective attainment of EPA's goals related to the Superfund program. Major themes of
OIG assignments will include: internal controls to determine their adequacy both within EPA
562
-------
and its grantees and contractors; project management to ensure that EPA and its grantees and
contractors have clear plans and accountability for performance progress; enforcement to
evaluate whether there is consistent, adequate and appropriate application of the laws and
regulations across jurisdictions with coordination between federal, state and local law
enforcement activities; grants and contracts to verify that grants are made based upon uniform
risk assessment and capacity to account and perform, and that contractors perform with integrity
and value.
Audits and Evaluations
OIG audits and evaluations related to the Superfund program will identify program and
management risks and determine if EPA is efficiently and effectively reducing human health
risks; taking effective enforcement actions; cleaning up hazardous waste; restoring previously
polluted sites to appropriate uses; and ensuring long-term stewardship of polluted sites. The OIG
will evaluate how effectively EPA and other Federal agencies have addressed and resolved
human health and environmental risks at facilities on the National Priorities List and other sites
that are supported by Superfund resources.
Prior audits and evaluations of the Superfund program have identified numerous barriers to
implementing effective resource management and program improvements. Therefore, the OIG
will review:
• the reliability and validity of environmental data EPA receives from third parties;
• Agency actions to ensure long-term safety and appropriate reuse of Superfund sites;
• whether required five-year reviews have been completed for Federal facility Superfund
sites;
• the use of remote sensing data reflecting environmental contamination of selected
Superfund sites;
• the oversight of States' stewardship of land use restrictions and institutional controls;
• actions for preventing cost overruns and project delays, including the use of fixed-price
contracts; and
• analyze the accuracy of Superfund claims.
The OIG will also evaluate ways to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse, and maximize results
achieved from its Superfund contracts and assistance agreements.
Investigations
OIG investigations also focus on identifying criminal activity pertaining to the Superfund
program. The OIG will conduct investigations into allegations, and seek prosecution of: 1)
fraudulent practices in awarding, performing, and payment on EPA Superfund contracts, grants,
or other assistance agreements; 2) program fraud or other acts that undermine the integrity of, or
confidence in, the Superfund program and create imminent environmental risks; and 3) contract
laboratory fraud relating to Superfund data, and false claims for erroneous laboratory results that
undermine the bases for Superfund decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement
actions. OIG investigations will also pursue civil actions for recovery and restitution of financial
563
-------
losses, and administrative actions to prevent unscrupulous persons and businesses from
participating in EPA programs.
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up
reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations for the Superfund program to
determine if appropriate actions have been taken and intended improvements have been
achieved. This process will serve as a means for keeping EPA leadership informed of
accomplishments, apprised of needed corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability
for results from OIG operations. Oversight over the Agency audit management process ensures
that action on all opportunities for and improvements identified through OIG reports are
appropriately taken.
Also, as directed by the IG Act, the OIG 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.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports performance measures in the Audits, Evaluation, and
Investigations program project under the OIG appropriation. These measures can also be found
in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$177.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$4.0) This change reflects a realignment of OIG contract resources between the IG and
Superfund appropriations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; SARA; CERCLA; TSCA.
Inspector General Reform Act:
The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General
Reform Act:
• the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is
$64,766,000 ($54,791,000 Inspector General; $9,975,000 Superfund Transfer);
• the aggregate request in the President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is
$55,802,000 ($45,646,000 Inspector General; $10,156,000 Superfund Transfer);
564
-------
• the portion of the aggregate request in the President's Budget needed for OIG training is
$875,000; and
• the portion of the aggregate request in the President's Budget needed to support the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is $155,000.
Certification from the Acting Inspector General:
"I certify as the Acting IG of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I have
requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2011."
The OIG's requested budget for FY 2011 represents a $10,000,000 increase over the OIG's
portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $64,766,000). The additional funding is
necessary as a result of the following:
In the FY 2010 Enacted Budget, EPA received: 1) $1,410,920,000 increase for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund; 2) $557,971,000 increase in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund;
and 3) $475,000,000 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The State Revolving funds will
provide grants to states for water infrastructure projects. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
will use funds to support projects targeting the most significant problems of the Great Lakes.
Grants funds have been long identified as areas of high risk and management challenges in their
potential for: misapplication from the intended environmental purpose; lack of accountability
and potential for fraud. To help ensure essential transparency and the greatest public
environmental benefit, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) will provide oversight of how these
funds are used and whether desired results are achieved through financial, forensic, and
performance audits of EPA's State Revolving Fund programs, grants, interagency agreements,
and cooperative agreements. The OIG will also conduct assistance agreement investigations of
these same areas.
This specific increase in EPA's 2010 budget for grants, without a specific corresponding increase
in OIG audits and investigations, renders these funds vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse
without the appropriate oversight to ensure they will be accounted for and applied to the intended
purpose.
The Acting Inspector General has submitted comments setting forth the Acting Inspector
General's conclusion that this Budget's request for the Office of Inspector General "would
substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office" under
Section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. A copy of the Acting
Inspector General's official statement to the Director of OMB is included in the Appendix
section of the congressional justification.
565
-------
Program Area: Compliance
566
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$98,457.1
$0.0
$1,265.2
$99,722.3
613.6
FY2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$110,467.0
$139.0
$1,220.0
$111,826.0
632.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$11,067.0
$139.0
$4.0
$11,210.0
20.2
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Monitoring program reviews and evaluates the activities of the regulated
community to determine compliance with applicable laws, regulations, permit conditions, and
settlement agreements by conducting compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, record
reviews, information requests, and by responding to tips and complaints from the public. The
program conducts these activities to determine whether conditions that exist may present
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and to verify
whether regulated sites are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The Superfund portion of the Compliance Monitoring program focuses on providing information
system support for monitoring compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and
contaminated site clean-up agreements. The program also will ensure the security and integrity
of its compliance information systems.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Superfund-related compliance monitoring activities are mainly reported and tracked through the
Agency's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). In FY 2011, the Compliance
Monitoring program will include support and ongoing enhancements to ICIS for continued
support of the Federal enforcement and compliance program. EPA will continue to ensure the
security and integrity of these systems, and will use ICIS data to support Superfund-related
regulatory enforcement program activities. In FY 2011, the Superfund portion of this program
for ICIS-related work is $190 thousand.
EPA will continue to make Superfund-related compliance monitoring information available to
the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO) Internet website1.
' For more information, refer to: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/
567
-------
This site provides communities with information on compliance status. EPA will continue to
develop additional tools and data for public use.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Compliance Monitoring
program project under EPM. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR: NEPA.
568
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
569
-------
Environmental Justice
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,460.3
$624.6
$6,084.9
19.6
FY2010
Enacted
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$7,317.0
$806.0
$8,123.0
32.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$227.0
$11.0
$238.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by
communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. The EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ)
program facilitates EPA's efforts to engage communities in key decision-making processes and
to integrate environmental justice considerations in EPA programs, policies, and activities. The
Superfund portion of the program focuses on issues that affect communities at or near Superfund
sites. The EJ program complements and enhances the community outreach, like the Solid Water
and Emergency Response program's Community Engagement Initiative, and other work done
under the Superfund program at affected sites. The Agency also supports state and Tribal
environmental justice programs and conducts outreach and technical assistance to states, local
governments, and stakeholders on environmental justice issues.2
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to enhance the integration of environmental justice principles
into Agency decision-making process and collaborative problem-solving initiatives. The
program conducts and supports work to "open its doors" to communities of color, Native
Americans, the poor, and other historically underrepresented groups. It also promotes active
engagement of community groups, other Federal agencies, states, local governments, and Tribal
governments to recognize, support, and advance environmental protection and public health for
vulnerable communities. The program will guide EPA's efforts to empower vulnerable
communities to protect themselves from environmental harms and to build healthy and
sustainable neighborhoods that enable disadvantaged groups to participate in the new green
economy through financial and technical assistance. The program will partner with other
Agency programs to create scientific analytical methods, a legal foundation, and public
engagement practices that enable the incorporation of environmental justice considerations in
EPA's regulatory and policy decisions. Finally, the EJ program will support Agency efforts to
strengthen internal mechanisms to integrate environmental justice including communications and
training, performance management and accountability measures, and workforce diversity.
2 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html.
570
-------
Performance Targets:
EJ program performance is reflected in EPA program results that benefit disproportionately
burdened minority, low-income, and Tribal populations. Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$11.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
571
-------
Superfund: Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$172,412.0
$172,412.0
908.4
FY2010
Enacted
$172,668.0
$172,668.0
949.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$176,532.0
$176,532.0
949.9
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,864.0
$3,864.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Superfund Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an "enforcement
first" approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and
paying for cleanups. In both remedial and removal programs, the Superfund Enforcement
program includes nationally significant or precedential civil, judicial, and administrative site
remediation cases, and provides legal and technical enforcement support on Superfund
enforcement actions and emerging issues. The Superfund Enforcement program also develops
waste cleanup enforcement policies, and provides guidance and tools that clarify potential
environmental cleanup liability with specific attention to the reuse and revitalization of
contaminated properties, including Brownfield properties.
EPA negotiates cleanup agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at hazardous
waste sites and, where negotiations fail, the Agency either takes enforcement actions to require
cleanup or expends Superfund appropriated dollars to remediate the sites. In some cases, EPA
takes both actions. When EPA uses appropriated dollars, the Superfund Enforcement program
takes action against any viable PRPs to recover the cleanup costs. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) supports EPA's Superfund Enforcement program through negotiations and judicial actions
to compel PRP clean-up and litigation to recover appropriated monies spent on cleanup. In
tandem with this approach, EPA has implemented various reforms to increase fairness, reduce
transaction costs, promote economic development, and make sites available for appropriate re-
use. 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 actions.
The Agency sustains the "polluter pays" principle cleaning up more sites and preserving
appropriated dollars for sites without viable PRPs. Since the program's inception, EPA has
achieved more than eight dollars in private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery for
every dollar spent by EPA on Superfund enforcement costs. The cumulative value of private
party commitments is more than $30 billion ($25.4 billion for cleanup work and $5.4 billion in
cost recovery).
572
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Throughout FY 2011, the Superfund Enforcement program will maximize PRP participation in
cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement process and will continue to recover costs
from PRPs when EPA expends appropriated funds. The Agency will maximize PRP
participation by reaching a settlement or taking an enforcement action by the time a remedial
action starts at 95 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties. The
Agency also will continue to ensure Trust Fund stewardship through cost recovery efforts that
include addressing - prior to the end of the statute of limitations period — 100 percent of past
costs at sites where total past costs are equal to or greater than $200 thousand. The Agency also
will continue efforts to recover past costs at sites where total costs are below $200 thousand in
the most cost-efficient manner possible.
In FY 2011, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at contaminated properties to address contamination impacting local
communities. Where negotiations fail, the Agency will either take unilateral enforcement actions
to require PRP cleanup or use appropriated dollars to remediate sites (or both). When
appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover the associated cleanup
costs from the PRPs. If future work remains at a site, recovered funds could be placed in a site-
specific special account. Special accounts are sub-accounts within EPA's Trust Fund which
segregate funds obtained from responsible parties who enter into settlement agreements with
EPA. These funds act as an incentive for other PRPs to perform cleanup work and can be used
by the Agency to fund cleanup at that site. The Agency also will continue its efforts to establish
and use special accounts to facilitate cleanup, improve tracking, and plan the use of special
account funds. Through the end of FY 2009, 948 site-specific special accounts were established
and over $2.96 billion was deposited into special accounts (including earned interest).
Approximately $1.43 billion from special accounts has been disbursed by EPA to finance site
response actions and another $184.3 million has been obligated but not yet disbursed. EPA is
carefully managing the $1.34 billion that was available as of October 1, 2009 and has developed
multi-year plans to use these funds as expeditiously as possible.
A critical component of many response actions selected by EPA is institutional controls. These
are established to ensure that property is used and maintained in an appropriate manner that
protects the public health after construction of the physical remedy is complete. The Superfund
Enforcement program will help oversee the implementation and enforcement of institutional
controls as part of its remedies, focusing particularly on sites where construction of engineered
remedies has been completed.
The Agency's Superfund program pursues an "enforcement first" policy to ensure that sites for
which there are viable, liable responsible parties are cleaned up by those parties. In tandem with
this approach, various Superfund reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce
transaction costs, and promote economic redevelopment.3 EPA also will work 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 actions.
3 For more information about EPA's Superfund enforcement program, and its various components, refer to: www.epa.gov/
compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
573
-------
In FY 2011, the Agency will provide the DOJ with $25.6 million, through an Interagency
Agreement, to provide support for EPA's Superfund Enforcement program through such actions
as negotiating consent decrees with PRPs, preparing judicial actions to compel PRP clean-up,
and litigating to recover monies spent in cleaning up contaminated sites. EPA's Superfund
Enforcement program is responsible for case development and preparation, referral to DOJ, and
post-filing actions as well as for providing case and cost documentation support for the docket of
current cases with DOJ. The program also ensures that EPA meets cost recovery statute of
limitation deadlines, resolves cases, issues bills timely for oversight, and makes collections in a
timely manner. By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle that
polluters should either perform or pay for cleanups which preserves appropriated resources to
address contaminated sites where there are no viable, liable PRPs. The Agency's expenditures
will be recouped through administrative actions and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 107 case referrals. The Agency also will
continue to refer delinquent accounts receivable to DOJ for debt collection enforcement.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Refer to DOJ, settle, or
writeoff 100% of
Statute of Limitations
(SOLs) cases for SF
sites with total
unaddressed past costs
equal to or greater than
$200,000 and report
value of costs
recovered.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Superfund sites at
which settlement or
enforcement action
taken before the start
ofRA.
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4,204.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (+$45.0) This increase in grants reflects support for the Superfund Enforcement
activities, including PRP searches.
• (-$316.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
574
-------
• (-$69.0) The reduction reflects a decrease of IT and telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CERCLA;
SBLRBRERA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; Safe Drinking Water Act; CCA;
FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations; FMFIA; FOIA; GMRA; IPIA; IGA; PRA;
Privacy Act; CFOA; Government Performance and Results Act; The Prompt Payment Act;
Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
575
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,265.5
$9,265.5
57.7
FY2010
Enacted
$10,570.0
$10,570.0
67.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$10,909.0
$10,909.0
67.5
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$339.0
$339.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that sites with Federal entities
performing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) responses and CERCLA sites with Federal ownership are monitored and appropriate
enforcement responses are pursued. After years of service and operation, some Federal facilities
contain environmental contamination, such as hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance,
radioactive wastes, or other toxic substances. To enable the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the
Federal Facilities Enforcement program coordinates creative solutions that protect both human
health and the environment. These enforcement solutions help restore facilities so they can once
again serve an important role in the economy and welfare of local communities and our country.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, EPA will enter into interagency agreements (lAs) with
responsible Federal entities to ensure protective cleanup at a timely pace. Priority areas for FY
2011 include ensuring that: 1) all Federal facility sites on the National Priorities List have lAs,
which provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these lAs are
monitored for compliance; 3) formerly utilized defense sites and mines with Federal involvement
are evaluated for action; and 4) Federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in
an environmentally responsible manner. EPA also will monitor milestones in existing lAs,
resolve disputes, take appropriate enforcement actions to address noncompliance, and oversee all
remedial work being conducted at Federal facilities. EPA also works to ensure that required
legally enforceable institutional controls and five-year review requirements are in place at
Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of cleanup actions. EPA also will
continue its work with affected agencies to resolve outstanding policy issues relating to the
cleanup of Federal facilities.
Performance Targets:
The Superfund Enforcement Program measures the Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed
(VCMA), which is a companion to the Civil Enforcement measure of Pounds of Pollutants
Reduced metric. This represents the volume of contaminated media (e.g., soil, groundwater,
576
-------
sediment) addressed through completed enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring
methodologies to extend the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the contaminated
media addressed. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure. Work
under this program supports the Restore Land and Improve Compliance objective, although
currently no specific performance measures exist for the Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$369.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (-$30.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; DBCRA; Defense Authorization Amendments; BRAC; PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241; Executive
Orders 12656 and 12580.
577
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$45,527.6
$9,058.1
$54,585.7
271.5
FY2010
Enacted
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$51,312.0
$8,142.0
$59,454.0
291.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,675.0
$76.0
$1,751.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute violations of Superfund
and Superfund-related laws which seriously threaten public health and the environment and
which involve knowing or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The Criminal
Enforcement program deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating
that the regulated community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines,
for such violations. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong message for potential violators,
enhancing aggregate compliance with laws and regulations.
The Criminal Enforcement program conducts investigations and identifies cases to be considered
for prosecution. Where appropriate, it helps secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions
that will require defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or
develop environmental management systems to enhance performance. The Agency is involved
in all phases of the investigative process and works with other law enforcement agencies to
present a highly visible and effective force in the Agency's overall enforcement strategy. Cases
are presented to the Department of Justice for prosecution, with EPA special agents serving as
key witnesses in the proceedings.
The program also participates in task forces with state and local law enforcement, and provides
specialized training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
FLETC provides one of the few opportunities for state, local, and Tribal environmental
enforcement professionals to obtain criminal investigation training.4
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to investigate and assist in the
prosecution of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) - related cases with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impact.
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
578
-------
The program will have completed its three-year hiring strategy of raising its special agent
workforce to 200 criminal investigators by the end of FY 2010. These resources will allow the
program to maximize its capacity in supporting efforts to address complex environmental cases
in FY 2011.
The Criminal Enforcement program is developing a methodology to "tier" significant cases
based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury,
human exposure, remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic
pollutants, continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation,
recidivist violator). Working with its international, Federal, state and local law enforcement
partners, EPA's criminal enforcement emphasis on these priorities will yield greater
environmental and public health benefits and deter illegal corporate and individual behavior.
The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination
with the civil enforcement program to ensure that the enforcement program as a whole responds
to violations as effectively as possible. Enforcement is accomplished by employing an effective
Regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate civil or criminal enforcement
responses for a particular violation and by taking criminal enforcement actions against long-term
or repeated significant non-compliers, where appropriate. Focusing on parallel proceedings and
other mechanisms that allow the Agency to use the most appropriate tools to address
environmental violations and crimes will also facilitate coordination.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of
Federal laws and regulations, as balanced with the flexibility to respond to region-specific
environmental problems. Criminal enforcement has management oversight controls and national
policies in place to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under
Federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by evaluating all investigations from the
national perspective, overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with program priorities,
conducting regular "docket reviews" (detailed review of all open investigations in each EPA
Regional office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement
priorities, and developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and revising policies and
programs.
In FY 2011, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS). Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used
to systematically compile a profile of criminal cases, including the extent to which the cases
support Agencywide, program-specific or Regional enforcement priorities. The program also
will seek to deter environmental crime by increasing the volume and quality of leads reported to
EPA by the public through the tips and complaints link on EPA's Web site and continue to use
the Fugitive Website to enlist the public and law enforcement agencies to help apprehend
defendants who have fled the country or are in hiding rather than face prosecution for alleged
environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which they have been found guilty. During
FY 2009, three fugitives were captured, and two more surrendered to law enforcement
authorities.
579
-------
Performance Targets:
Results will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2010, and will be
reported in the FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and the FY 2012
Congressional Justification.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$130.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$20.0) This change reflects a realignment of IT and telecommunications resources.
• (+$81.0) This change represents increased travel support for criminal investigations.
• (-$155.0) This change reflects a redirection of contractor support for the criminal
investigators to support travel.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA; Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false
statements, conspiracy); Power of Environmental Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
580
-------
Enforcement Training
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,110.6
$776.9
$3,887.5
22.3
FY2010
Enacted
$3,278.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
($4,177.0)
-20.8
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 requires EPA to provide environmental compliance and
enforcement training nationwide through the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI).
The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized
enforcement courses, through NETI5, that sustain a well-trained workforce to carry out the
Agency's enforcement and compliance goals. Courses are provided to lawyers, inspectors, civil
and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of government.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, funding under the Enforcement Training program will be eliminated. There will be
reductions to NETFs classroom training and the remaining resources supporting web-based
training will be transferred to the Compliance Monitoring program.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$845.07 -5.2 FTE) This reduction, including $708.0 in payroll, streamlines NETI by
eliminating Superfund funding for classroom training and taking advantage of web-based
tools.
• (-$54.0) This reduction reflects the transfer of remaining Enforcement Training activities
to the Compliance Monitoring program.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
' For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
581
-------
Forensics Support
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,450.6
$2,695.9
$17,146.5
97.6
FY2010
Enacted
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$15,909.0
$2,501.0
$18,410.0
105.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$558.0
$51.0
$609.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex Superfund (SF) civil and criminal enforcement cases as well as technical
expertise for Agency compliance efforts. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is a fully accredited environmental forensics center under International Standards
Organization (ISO) 17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories.
NEIC's accreditation standard has been customized to cover both laboratory and field activities.
NEIC collaborates with other Federal, state, local, and Tribal enforcement organizations to
provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation, and case resolution
activities in support of the Agency's civil enforcement program. The program coordinates with
the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to
provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.6
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2011 will include continuing
use of customized laboratory methods to identify potentially responsible parties. In response to
SF case needs, the NEIC will conduct applied research and development to identify and deploy
new capabilities and to test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques involving
environmental measurement and forensic situations.
In FY 2011, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental
data measurements to maintain its accreditation. The program also will continue development of
emerging technologies in field measurement and laboratory analytical techniques, as well as
identification of pollution sources at abandoned SF and other waste sites.
Performance Targets:
Currently, no specific performance measures exist for this Program Project.
6 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
582
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$47.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
• (+$15.0) This change reflects an increase in support costs for the forensics laboratory at
the National Enforcement Investigations Center.
• (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA.
583
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
584
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,837.2
$23,961.7
$1,767.0
$32,565.9
47.8
FY2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,415.0
$16,105.0
$0.0
$18,520.0
28.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($4,421.0)
($6,921.0)
($1,760.0)
($13,102.0)
-21.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes Superfund activities that coordinate and support protection of the nation's
critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats. Through this program, EPA provides subject
matter expertise and training support for terrorism-related environmental investigations to
support responses authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). The program coordinates the Agency's law enforcement/crisis
management activities and also has direct responsibilities pursuant to the National Response
Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Functions 10 and 13, and the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Annex.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. There are no performance
measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,760.07-8.2 FTE) Beginning in FY 2011, EPA will not need to maintain separate
capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for terrorism
related investigations. This reduction reflects the increased capacity of other agencies to
handle the environmental forensics work associated with potential homeland security
related incidents. This reduction includes 8.2 FTE and associated payroll of $1,418.0.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, as amended; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act
of2002.
585
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,054.1
$41,771.8
$55,479.4
$100,305.3
187.8
FY2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,012.0
$34,598.0
$42,274.0
$78,884.0
181.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,411.0)
($7,059.0)
($11,306.0)
($19,776.0)
6.8
Program Project Description:
EPA's Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program develops and
maintains an Agency-wide capability to respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with
emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The program builds
upon EPA's long standing emergency response and removal program, which is responsible for
responding to and cleaning up both oil and hazardous substance releases. EPA's homeland
security effort expands these responsibilities to include threats associated with chemical,
biological, and radiological (CBR) agents. To meet this challenge, EPA will continue to use a
comprehensive approach that brings together all emergency response assets to implement
efficient and effective responses. Another priority for this program is improving research,
development, and technical support for potential threats and response protocols. The range of
research programs and initiatives will both continue to develop a better understanding of the
scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design
of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, efforts to develop the capability to respond to multiple incidents will concentrate on
four core areas: 1) maintaining a highly skilled, well-trained, and equipped response workforce
that has the capacity to respond to simultaneous incidents as well as threats involving WMD
substances; 2) developing decontamination options, methods, and protocols to ensure that the
nation can quickly recover from nationally significant incidents; 3) ensuring that current
laboratory equipment maintains the capability to analyze Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) fixed
and mobile samples while continuing to leverage other agencies for biological agent analyses;
and 4) implementing the EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) to effectively manage
EPA's emergency response assets during large-scale activations. The decrease in resources in FY
2011 is not expected to impede efforts to meet agency goals under this program.
586
-------
EPA activities in support of these efforts include the following:
• Maintain the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through specialized training,
exercises, and equipment. In FY 2011, EPA and its Federal, state, local, and Tribal
homeland response partners will continue to participate in exercises and trainings
designed to test and improve EPA's response capabilities.
• Develop the Agency's responder base during large-scale catastrophic incidents by
training volunteers of the Response Support Corps (RSC) and members of Incident
Management Teams (IMTs). These volunteers provide critical support in Headquarters
and Regional Emergency Operations Centers and in assisting with operations in the field.
To ensure technical proficiency, this cadre of response personnel requires initial training
and yearly refresher training to include opportunities to participate in exercises.
Depending upon the level and complexity of the assigned position, volunteers may also
participate in workshops, health and safety training, medical monitoring, and equipment
acquisition, as necessary. The focus is on their assigned responsibilities during a
response, interactions with the emergency response program personnel, and
understanding lines of communication within an IMT.
• Ensure that laboratories maintain the capacity and capability to analyze and verify CWA
samples during nationally significant incidents. The Agency also will maintain and
operate existing fixed CWA labs and develop the capability of two Portable High-
Throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification Systems (PHILIS) units. The Agency
will continue to participate with the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks,
maintaining a laboratory compendium of Federal, state, and commercial capabilities, and
maintain a chemical surety program.
• Establish agreements with other Federal agencies to access biological warfare agent
laboratory analyses.
• Operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN) in Headquarters and
Regional Offices to provide lab analysis for routine and emergency response and removal
operations, including a terrorist attack.
• Continue to develop and validate environmental sampling, analysis, and human health
risk assessment methods for known and emerging biological threat agents. These
sampling and analysis methods are critical to ensuring appropriate response and recovery
actions and developing necessary laboratory support capacity. The human health risk
assessment methods are also extremely important to decision-makers who are faced with
determining when decontaminated facilities and equipment can be returned to service.
This decontamination and consequence management research will produce data,
information, and technologies to assist EPA in developing standards, protocols, and
capabilities to recover from and mitigate the risks associated with biological attacks.
587
-------
• Implement the NAR to maximize regional interoperability and to ensure that EPA's
OSCs will be able to respond to terrorist threats and large-scale catastrophic incidents in
an effective and nationally consistent manner.
• Continue to maintain one Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection
Technology (ASPECT) aircraft. The EPA ASPECT provides direct assistance to first
responders by remotely detecting chemical and radiological vapors, plumes, and clouds.
• Maintain the Emergency Management Portal (EMP) modules. EMP ties together
prevention, preparedness, and response information to allow EPA's emergency
management community access to information they need to respond to and efficiently
store data from large and small sites. The Decontamination Portfolio resides in the EMP.
• Conduct WMD decontamination course for EPA OSCs, Special Teams, and RSC
personnel to improve decontamination preparedness for CBR agents.
• The Environmental Response Team (ERT) will maintain personnel and equipment in a
state of readiness for response to potential homeland security incidents. It also will
maintain capacity to provide required health and safety and response readiness training.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$31.0) This reflects a reduction for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$289.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$11,000.0) This reduction reflects completion of ramp up of recent Agency
investments in homeland security emergency preparedness and response activities, such
as laboratory and decontamination preparedness.
• (+$14.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of resources such as critical
equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align
with programmatic priorities. These realignments are based on FTE allocations as well
as scientific equipment needs.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act.
588
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,648.8
$587.0
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$16,999.3
5.1
FY2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$6,391.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,249.0
3.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$22.0
$1.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program's activities ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure and
operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in the
event of an emergency. The program also includes the personnel security clearance process,
protecting any classified information, and providing necessary secure communications.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will conduct exercises of Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans,
activation of essential personnel to the COOP site, and implementation of its essential functions
from its remote alternate site(s), including interagency operations. In FY 2011, EPA plans to
support training activities and participate in a major interagency COOP exercise and an EPA
internal COOP exercise with Headquarters and Regional Offices. EPA will continue activities
toward meeting the requirements of National Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10,
through the purchase, installation, and maintenance of secure communications equipment for
primary and alternate Headquarters COOP sites.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
Currently, there are no
589
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA;
Public Law 104-12 (Nunn-Lugar II); National Response Plan; National Security Act of 1947, as
amended (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
590
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
591
-------
Exchange Network
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$17,440.8
$922.4
$18,363.2
28.6
FY2010
Enacted
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$18,702.0
$1,433.0
$20,135.0
30.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,678.0
$0.0
$1,678.0
6.0
Program Project Description:
The Exchange Network7 (Network) is a standards-based partnership that uses the Internet to
make it possible for states, tribes, territories, EPA and other partners to share environmental data
faster, and at greater cost savings. With the Network, Federal and state environmental decision-
makers have better access to the right data when they need it. Access to the data will allow the
sharing of information, which will improve environmental protection and results across
jurisdictions. The Water Quality Exchange (WQX) project, for example, enables states to query
ambient water conditions in other states and portray the quality of an entire watershed, such as
along the Columbia, Missouri and Susquehanna Rivers, or make decisions based on the totality
of data available, rather than just the data they have about their own particular stream reach.
The state-led Homeland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE) uses the Network to assist
environmental decision-makers and first-responders. With HERE and the Exchange Network,
emergency personnel can get the latest information about the location and contents of EPA- and
state-regulated facilities containing hazardous or toxic wastes or other points of interest that may
lie in the vicinity of a local emergency, such as a fire. In California firefighters have used HERE
to download vital Geographic Information System (GlS)-displayed information onto their laptops
while in their fire truck on the way to a fire.
The Central Data Exchange8 (CDX) is the largest activity within the Exchange Network
program; it is the electronic gateway through which environmental data enters the Agency. CDX
enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from state and local
governments, industry and tribes to EPA. The CDX budget supports development, test and
production infrastructure, sophisticated hardware and software, data exchange and Web form
programs, and standards-setting projects with states, tribes, and territories for e-reporting, as well
For more information on the Exchange Network, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/Networkg/
8 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
592
-------
as significant security and quality assurance activities. By reducing administrative burden on
EPA programs, CDX helps the Superfund (SF) program focus more manpower and resources on
enforcement and programmatic work and less on data collection and manipulation.
Other tools and services in the CDX and Exchange Network program project include:
• The Facility Registry System (FRS) is a widely used source of environmental data about
facilities and allows a multimedia display and integration of environmental information.
This offers obvious benefits for enforcement targeting, homeland security, data
integration, as well as other benefits such as those described above with the FIBRE
project, which uses FRS as a key data source.
• The National Geospatial Program9 supports environmental protection, planning, risk
assessment, enforcement, permitting and outreach to the public as well as emergency
response efforts by EPA, other Federal agencies, states and communities.
• The System of Registries10 (SOR) adds meaning to EPA's data and promotes access,
sharing and understanding of it. The SOR helps environmental professionals and the
public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and
authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable.
This activity is funded under the Superfund appropriation. Superfund resources pay for
approximately 20 percent of selected work done under the Exchange Network, Information
Security and IT/Data Management program projects. Superfund funds are selectively applied to
projects that have Agency-wide benefits.
This program also supports efficient reporting under the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirements. Additional details can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the major focus of the Exchange Network and CDX for the Superfund program will
be to increase the amount of critical environmental data flowing on the Network, expand the
program's role in sharing data among partners, provide increased business value through reduced
burden and better quality data, and improve data access and transparency through the use of new,
innovative technologies. These activities build on prior efforts and represent the latest efforts of
EPA and its Network partners to provide better data quality, timeliness and accessibility at a
lower cost.
Also in FY 2011, EPA, states, and tribes and territories will continue to re-engineer data systems
so information that was previously difficult to share can be transferred via the Exchange Network
using common data standards and data formats, which are called schemas. In addition, EPA is
continuing to add new features to the Network such as RSS (real simple syndication) feeds,
which are news channels that Network partners can request that will promote greater data
availability and encourage broader use of the Network. These efforts will be closely coordinated
For more information on the National Geospatial Program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/
10 For more information on the System of Registries, please visit: http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_intemet/
593
-------
with the Agency's program offices as well as with EPA's partners on the Network. As data
flows are added, the broader use of data standards, quality tools that check data before it is
submitted, reusable schemas and other reusable components will increase the accuracy and
timeliness of the data, improve analytical capabilities, and create savings through economies of
scale.
EPA will continue to improve Network data security by implementing electronic reporting
standards that support the authentication and electronic signatures of report submitters.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Exchange Network
program project under EPM. This measure can also be found in the Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA;
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA;
GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA. Exchange Network program funding has been
provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY 2002 (Public Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public
Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY 2005 (Public Law 108-447) and FY 2006
(Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY
2009 (Public Law 111-8).
594
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
595
-------
Information Security
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,565.3
$1,013.2
$5,578.5
8.7
FY2010
Enacted
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$7,030.0
$728.0
$7,758.0
15.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,118.0
($57.0)
$1,061.0
-0.5
Program Project Description:
The Agency Information Security Program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability
and integrity of EPA's information assets related to the Superfund program. The protection
strategy includes, but is not limited to, enterprise policy, procedure and practice management;
information security awareness, training and education; risk-based Certification & Accreditation
(C&A); Plans of Action & Milestone (POA&M's) management to ensure remediation of
weaknesses; defense-in-depth and breadth technology and operational security management;
incident response and handling; and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)
reporting.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Effective information security is a constantly moving target. Every year, Agency security
practitioners are challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts
to breach organizational protections. In FY 2011, EPA's continuous integrated efforts will allow
the Agency's Information Security Program to take a more proactive role in dealing with these
threats under the Superfund program.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets related to the
Superfund program by continuing improvement to the Information Security Program. The
Agency will continue to focus initially on asset definition and management, compliance, incident
management, knowledge and information management, risk management, and technology
management. Secondary activities in FY 2011 include, but are not limited to, access
management, organizational training and awareness, measurement and analysis, and service
continuity. These efforts will strengthen the Agency's ability to ensure operational resiliency.
The final result will be an information security program that can rely on effective and efficient
processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive events.
596
-------
Concurrently, EPA will continue its performance-based information security activities with a
particular emphasis on risk management, incident management and information security
architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth). These three areas are critical to the Agency's security
position. They are also key components of various Federal mandates, such as the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) information security initiatives, which will be implemented
throughout FY 2011, including Trusted Internet Connection (TIC), Domain Name Service
Security (DNSSec) and the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC). These mandates are
rapidly enhancing the Agency's security requirements for information policy, technology
standards and practices.
EPA will continue transitioning from Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in accordance
with the June 30, 2008 OMB M-05-22, Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6).
This effort is a Federal initiative designed to retain our nation's technical and market leadership in
the Internet sector and to expand and improve services for Americans. As with many enterprise
initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed in order to make this
capability secure. EPA will continue analyzing and planning a long-term strategy for
implementing, monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2011.
Additionally, EPA will continue implementing Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12
(HSPD-12) requirements for logical access as identified in the Federal Information Processing
Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and
Contractors. This Enterprise Identity and Access Management (IAM) project will be combined
with the Enterprise Single Sign-On (SSO) to enable the required enhanced authentication
mechanism without burdening EPA systems users.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Information Security program
project under EPM. This measure can also be found in the Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$57.07 -0.5 FTE) These resources are shifting from the Information Security program to
IT/ Data Management program to support the Agency's Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC) projects and policy. This change includes $57.0 in associated payroll and
reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align
resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
597
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$90,809.5
$3,852.1
$164.3
$36.3
$17,266.1
$112,128.3
484.6
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$98,060.0
$4,111.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$118,891.0
489.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$650.0
($274.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($367.0)
($177.0)
-13.8
Program Project Description:
In broad terms, IT/DM houses all of the critical IT infrastructure needed for: 1) rapid and
efficient communication; 2) exchange and storage of data, analysis and computations; and 3)
access to the scientific regulatory and best practice infrastructure needed by agency staff, the
regulated community, and the public. These functions are integral to the implementation of
Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central
Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). Recent partnerships include
portals projects with the Research and Development and Air and Radiation offices to access
scientific and program data.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators and electronic Report on the Environment [ROE])
to ensure sound environmental decision-making. The program implements the Agency's e-
Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and it designs, develops, and manages the Agency's internet
and intranet resources, including the Integrated Portal.
In more specific terms, the program: (1) supports development, collection, management, and
analysis of point source and ambient environmental data used to manage statutory programs and
to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national, program, and regional levels; (2)
provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise
architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and public access; (3) manages the
Agency's Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal
guidelines; and (4) supports regional information technology infrastructure, telecommunications,
and administrative and environmental programs.
598
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the Superfund
program:
• Information Access - FY 2011 activities in this area are principally geared toward
making environmental information accessible to all users. This includes: access to
Environmental Indicators; support for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data; a major role
in electronic government (eGov) activities such as to improve Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) activities using electronic workflow management, and eRulemaking - a
Web-based system to facilitate, and provide greater public access to, Federal
rulemakings; and development of analytical tools to help users understand the meaning of
environmental data. It includes facility data collected from numerous Federal programs,
and tools to help those who use information from a variety of sources to reconfigure that
data so it can be easily compared and analyzed.
In FY 2011, EPA's Integrated Portal activities will continue to implement identity and
access management solutions, integrate geospatial tools and link the CDX. The Portal is
the Technology Initiative's link to diverse data sets and systems giving users the ability to
perform complex environmental data analyses on data stored at other locations. It
provides a single business gateway for people to access, exchange and integrate
standardized local, Regional and national environmental and public health data. (In FY
2011, the Information Access activities will be funded, under the Superfund
appropriation, at $0.28 million)
• Envirofacts - FY 2011 activities in this area continue to support a single point of access
to EPA databases containing information about environmental activities that may affect
air, water, and land anywhere in the United States; houses data that has been collected
from regulated entities and the states; and makes that data accessible to environmental
professionals, the regulated community, citizens groups, and to state and EPA employees
through an easy-to-use, one-stop access point. Its components include databases and
applications that make integrated environmental information available to all EPA
stakeholders. Envirofacts directly supports the Agency's strategic goal of fulfilling
Americans "Right-to-Know" about their environment which in turn supports EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment. It also supports integrated data
access, a key component in the planned enterprise architecture that will support EPA's
current and future business needs.
Envirofacts also is being used to help plan and conduct multi-media inspections, and to
support emergency response and planning. In FY 2011 EPA will consolidate the
Envirofacts data warehouse, the Facility Registry System and the System of Registries
into a single operation under a single Federal manager. The scope of services being
delivered will be narrowed and the manner in which users receive service will change.
Rather than serving the public directly through a Web-based interface, these products will
be retooled to offer Web services for other applications to consume. This will complete
the transition from a series of EPA-funded databases to a services-orientation whereby
599
-------
consumers get direct service from a secondary provider. (In FY 2011, the Envirofacts
activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.44 million)
• IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning - FY 2011 activities in this
area will continue ensuring that all due steps are taken to reduce redundancy among
information systems and data bases, streamline and systematize the planning and
budgeting for all IT/IM activities, and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM
activities and systems. This category includes EPA's implementation of an Enterprise
Architecture and the Capital Planning and Investment Control process (CPIC), to assist
the Agency in making better informed decisions on IT/IM investments and resource
allocations. These activities also include the Agency's quality system, which is the basis
for ensuring that the Agency's data and information are sufficient for supporting Agency
decisions and of appropriate quality for use. (In FY 2011, the IT/IM Policy and Planning
activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $1.9 million)
• Geospatial Information and Analysis11 - In FY 2011, EPA will continue providing
place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad
range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities, roads, waste sites, etc.) and natural
features (wetlands, soil types, hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged and can be
accessed digitally, or viewed as overlays on maps. Geospatial information and analysis
play a critical role in the Agency's ability to rapidly and effectively respond in times of
emergency. Additionally, geographic location is becoming a key way to access EPA
digital data and documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will
allow Web-users to retrieve relevant documents by specifying a location that they are
interested in. Implemented as a holistic, enterprise solution, these projects also save
money, assure compatibility, and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software,
data and analytical services. (In FY 2011, the Geospatial Information and Analysis
activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.69 million)
• Electronic Records and Content Management (ECMS) - FY 2011 activities in this
area continue developing systems and processes, to convert paper documents into
electronic documents, convert paper-based processes into systems that rely less on paper
documents, and manage the electronic documents. By doing so, these activities reduce
costs, improve accessibility, and improve security for all of the documents entered into
the system. Electronic documents do not take up storage space, and do not need a filing
staff to locate documents for customers, and then re-file them after they are used. A
single copy of an electronic document can be accessed simultaneously by numerous
individuals, and from virtually any place on the planet.
In FY 2011 the Agency will continue using a collaborative process to implement the
ECMS project, an enterprise-wide, multi-media solution designed to manage and
organize native and environmental data and documents for EPA, Regional offices, field
offices and laboratories. Previously fragmented data storage approaches will be
converted into a single tool on a standard platform, which is accessible to everyone,
reducing data and document search time and assisting in security and information
11 For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/
600
-------
retention efforts. (In FY 2011, the Electronic Records and Content Management activities
will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.29 million)
• Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME) - FY 2011 activities in this area
continue implementing and maintaining the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov) and over
200 top-level pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on
the EPA Web site. In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web hosting for
all of the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery
mechanism for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the
public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2011,
IOME activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $0.86 million)
• IT/IM Infrastructure - FY 2011 activities in this area continue supporting the
information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications for all EPA employees and other on-site workers at over 100
locations, including EPA Headquarters, all ten regions, and the various labs and ancillary
offices. More specifically, these activities provide what is known as "workforce
support," which includes desktop equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application
hosting, remote access, telephone services and maintenance, Web and network servers,
IT related maintenance, IT security, and electronic records and data.
In FY 2011, EPA will be upgrading is WAN infrastructure to keep pace with demands on
bandwidth. Those demands increase as system capabilities and numbers of public users
grow, and EPA also needs to keep pace with the states in the areas of data collection,
management and utilization. (In FY 2011, the IT/IM Infrastructure activities will be
funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $12.28 million)
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. There are no specific
performance measures under this Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$166.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$570.0) This reflects the efficiency gains from consolidating Envirofacts, Facility
Registry System, and System of Registries and additional contractual savings.
• (+$65.07+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These resources are
shifting from the Information Security program to IT/ Data Management to support the
Agency's CPIC projects and policy, and they include $65.0 in associated payroll.
601
-------
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD, and DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
602
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
603
-------
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,280.5
$1,369.4
$2,649.9
6.3
FY2010
Enacted
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$1,390.0
$913.0
$2,303.0
7.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$243.0
$20.0
$263.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative Dispute
Resolution services (ADR). Funding supports the use of ADR in the Superfund program's
extensive legal work with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to provide conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA
headquarters and Regional offices and external stakeholders on Superfund program matters. The
national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent, and resolve
disputes and makes neutral third parties - such as facilitators and mediators - more readily
available for those purposes. Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR
techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with external parties in many contexts, including
adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and civil judicial enforcement
actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and grants,
stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$20.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
604
-------
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,917.2
$716.7
$42,633.9
242.6
FY2010
Enacted
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$44,002.0
$752.0
$44,754.0
252.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,340.0
$6.0
$1,346.0
1.6
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide legal representational
services, legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. Funding
supports the use of legal advice in the Superfund program's extensive legal work with Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) and other entities and landowners involved in the program.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency is committed to providing sound legal advice. In FY 2011, legal advice to
environmental programs will continue to include litigation support representing EPA and
providing litigation support in cases where EPA is a defendant, as well as those cases where EPA
is not a defendant, but may have an interest in the case. Legal advice, counsel, and support are
necessary for Agency management and program offices on matters involving environmental
issues including, for example, providing interpretations of, and drafting assistance on, relevant
and applicable laws, regulations, directives, policy and guidance documents, and other materials.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$6.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
605
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
606
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program are used to fund
rent, utilities, security, and also to manage activities and support services in many centralized
administrative areas at EPA. These include health and safety, environmental compliance,
occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, environmental management
functions, facilities maintenance and operations, space planning, shipping and receiving,
property management, printing and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services Administration and
other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly billing statements
are correct. The Agency also reviews space needs on a regular basis, and is implementing a
long-term space consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities,
consolidating space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where
practical. (For FY 2011, the Agency is requesting in the Superfund appropriation a total of
$41.89 million for rent, $3.75 million for utilities, $8.41 million for security, $3.27 million for
transit subsidy, and $2.34 million for Regional moves.)
These resources also help to improve operating efficiency and encourage the use of new
technologies and energy sources. EPA will continue to direct resources toward acquiring
alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet the goals
607
-------
set by Executive Order (EO) 1342312, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management, and Executive Order 1351413, Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, which expands upon EO 13423 and
requires additional reductions to green house gas emissions.
Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Order's goals through several initiatives,
including comprehensive facility energy audits, re-commissioning sustainable building design in
Agency construction and alteration projects, energy savings performance contracts to achieve
energy efficiencies, the use of off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, green
power purchases, and the use of Energy Star rated products and building standards.
EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13ISO14
Federal Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of Executive
Order 13423 and 13514. EPA will advance the implementation of Safety and Health
Management Systems to identify and mitigate potential safety and health risks in the workplace.
EPA will continue to provide safety, health, and environmental services that help maintain
EPA's readiness to respond to national emergencies while protecting its employees and
responsibly managing the environmental and safety hazards of samples associated with weapons
of mass destruction.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the
Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$197.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE.
• (-$2,412.0) This reduction reflects rent reduction as a result of the space consolidation
effort, as well as a rebalancing of cost methodologies between the EPM, S&T, and SF
appropriations.
• (+$352.0) This change reflects an increase in utility costs.
• (+$113.0) This increase provides additional resources for security costs.
• (+$265.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy.
12 Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/
13 Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/
14 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
608
-------
• (-$84.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$818.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result
of the completion of the Puerto Rico and Region 10 moves.
• (+$311.0) This change reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPA's
owned Regional laboratories.
• (+$231.07 +2.0 FTE) This increase reflects a transfer of resources. Region 10's increased
workload in Facilities Infrastructure & Operations, which is associated with a large and
complicated building renovation project spanning multiple years, demands the increased
investment. Further, a decreased workload in Acquisition Management enables the
transfer. This includes 2.0 FTE, and $231.0 in associated payroll.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive
Orders 10577, 12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and
Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical
Infrastructure).
609
-------
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$26,422.9
$2,932.5
$29,355.4
184.6
FY2010
Enacted
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$26,466.0
$3,318.0
$29,784.0
178.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$979.0
$373.0
$1,352.0
0.9
Program Project Description:
Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise more than half of the Agency's budget. Superfund
resources in this program support activities related to the management of Financial Assistance
Grants/Interagency Agreements (lAs), and of suspension and debarment at headquarters and
within Regional offices. The key components of this program are ensuring that EPA's
management of grants and lAs meets the highest fiduciary standards, and that grant funding
produces measurable environmental results. This program focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of EPA's assistance agreements, and fostering relationships with
state and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs. Sound
grants management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. A
substantial portion of the Superfund program is implemented through lAs with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will achieve key objectives under its long-term Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive
environmental outcomes, and aggressively implementing new and revised policies on at-risk
grantees of the Superfund grants and lAs.15 The Grants Management Plan provides a framework
for extensive improvements in grants management at the technical administrative level,
programmatic oversight level, and at the executive decision-making level of the Agency.
EPA will continue to reform grants management by conducting on-site and pre-award reviews of
grant recipients and applicants, performing indirect cost rate reviews, providing Tribal technical
assistance, and implementing its Agency-wide training program for project officers, grant
' US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finakeport.pdf.
610
-------
specialists, and managers. Oversight activities will include a substantial program of post award
monitoring to ensure that EPA's Recovery Act grant dollars are spent efficiently and effectively.
EPA will continue consolidating the administration of interagency agreements (IA) at
headquarters and Regional offices into the IA Shared Service Centers (IA SSC) into two
strategic locations, Washington D.C. and Seattle. The IA SSC will provide cradle to grave
Superfund IA administration, including all pre-award, award, management, post-award, and
close out activities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$282.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$35.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$126.07 +0.9 FTE) This change reflects the realignment of resources to support the
Agency's IA Shared Service Centers. This includes 0.9 FTE, and $126.0 in associated
payroll.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47;
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
611
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$31,332.7
$139.8
$23,521.1
$54,993.6
339.7
FY2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$33,934.0
$165.0
$24,337.0
$58,436.0
363.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,530.0
$0.0
($347.0)
$1,183.0
0.1
Program Project Description:
Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
Superfund resources in this program fund support contracts, and acquisition management at
headquarters, Regional offices, Research Triangle Park, and Cincinnati offices. Much of the
Superfund program is implemented through contracts. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level
of integrity in the management of its procurement activities and fostering relationships with state
and local governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will complete the deployment of its new acquisition system. The current
Acquisition Management System has reached the end of its useful life. Staff increasingly spends
time making the system work as opposed to using the system to accomplish their work. Further,
the system itself is obsolete, and therefore an upgrade is not feasible.
The new system will provide the Agency with a better and more comprehensive way to manage
data on contracts that support mission oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the
Agency to meet E-Government (E-Gov) requirements and the needs of Agency personnel,
resulting in more efficient process implementation. The benefits of the new system are that
program offices will be able to track the progress of individual actions; the Agency will be better
able to met internal and external reporting demands; and the system will integrate with the
Agency's financial and government-wide shared services systems.
In FY 2011, resources are being added to EPA's budget for additional acquisition management
support. The funds shall be available only to supplement, and not to supplant existing
acquisition workforce activities. Such funds shall be available for training, recruitment,
612
-------
retention, and hiring additional members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). These funds shall also be
available for information technology in support of acquisition workforce effectiveness or for
management solutions to improve acquisition management.
In FY 2011, EPA will reinforce its contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level
Assessments, a Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) Verification and Validation exercise,
increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel, and Simplified
Acquisition Contracting Officer (SACO) reviews. These measures will further strengthen EPA's
acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$637.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$186.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$348.07 -2.9 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. This decrease
reflects a transfer of resources to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program to
assist with a multi-year renovation project in Region ten, and to the Grants Management
program to support the Interagency Agreement (IA) shared service centers. This includes
-2.9 FTE, and -$348.0 in associated payroll.
• (+$1,500.07 +2.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in resources to supplement existing
acquisition workforce activities for training, recruitment, retention, and hiring additional
acquisition staff in an effort to enhance acquisition workforce effectiveness. This
includes 2.0 FTE, and $280.0 in associated payroll.
• (-$1,950.0) This change reflects a reduction of additional funding received in FY 2010
for the development phase of the new Acquisition Management System (EAS) and lower
funding levels as the system enters the implementation phase.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; contract law.
613
-------
Human Resources Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$43,373.2
$3.0
$5,475.7
$48,851.3
301.8
FY2010
Enacted
$42,447.0
$0.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$44,842.0
$0.0
$7,081.0
$51,923.0
303.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,395.0
$0.0
$1,501.0
$3,896.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital,
and human resources management services for the entire Agency. EPA supports organizational
development and management activities through Agency and interagency councils and
committees, and through participation in management improvement initiatives. The Agency
continually evaluates and improves Superfund related human resource and workforce functions,
employee development, leadership development, workforce planning, and succession
management.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue its efforts to strengthen its workforce by focusing on key
areas that further develop our existing talent, and by strengthening our recruitment and hiring
programs. EPA remains committed to fully implementing EPA 's Strategy for Human Capital
US EPA, Investing in Our People II, EPA 's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategy.pdf, which was issued in December 2003 and updated in
2005. As result of the review, the desired outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus
on measurable results. In FY 2011, the Agency will continue its efforts to implement a
Workforce Planning System:
• Closing competency gaps for information technology, human resources (HR), Grant and
Contract specialist positions, as well as leadership positions throughout the Agency.
• Shortening the hiring timeframes for the senior executives and non-SES positions
through improved automation and enhancements to the application process.
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission critical occupations.
614
-------
As part of these activities, EPA will continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
Agency human resources operations through the newly established Shared Service Centers
(SSC). These SSC process personnel and benefits actions for EPA's 17,000 employees, as well
as vacancy announcements. The Centers will enhance the timeliness and quality of customer
service, and standardize work processes.
In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management through employing
the E-government, and Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) initiatives. In FY2011,
EPA will continue to support the transition to a new or improved HR system which will establish
modern, cost-effective, standardized, and interoperable HR solutions that provide common core
functionality and support the strategic management of human capital.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,588.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$28.0) This reflects a decrease for Workers Compensation unemployment cost.
• (-$59.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Title V USC, FAIR Act.
615
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$89,875.3
$1,109.6
$24,154.9
$115,139.8
530.2
FY2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$86,039.0
$1,050.0
$26,934.0
$114,023.0
547.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,205.0
($65.0)
($556.0)
$2,584.0
-0.6
Program Project Description:
EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund
program. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) recognizes and supports this
continuing partnership by providing a full array of financial management support services
necessary to pay Superfund bills and recoup cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund.
OCFO manages Superfund budget formulation, justification, and execution as well as financial
cost recovery. OCFO also manages oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups (cost of
overseeing the responsible party's cleanup activities), Superfund cost documentation (the Federal
cost of cleaning up a Superfund site), and refers delinquent accounts receivable and oversight
debts to the Department of Justice for collection.(Refer to
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for more information).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2011, the Agency will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management of the
Superfund program through the use of routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling, and other
evaluation tools. We will continue to provide direction and support for the Superfund program
in financial management activities; implementing costs accounting requirements; financial
payment and support services; and Superfund-specific fiscal and accounting services. In
addition, more structured and more targeted use of performance measurements has led to better
understanding of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness.
FY 2011 is a critical year in the Agency's efforts to develop and modernize the Agency's
financial systems. The aggressive schedule includes final testing, data migration, and other vital
implementation steps. The Agency will replace its legacy accounting system and related
modules with a new system certified to meet the latest government accounting standards. This
616
-------
extensive modernization will allow the Agency to improve efficiency and automate quality
control functions to simplify the practical use of the system as well as comply with
Congressional direction and the new Federal financial systems requirements. This work will be
framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and will make maximum use of enabling
technologies for e-Gov initiatives.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to make significant strides in its accountability and effectiveness
of operations through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments as
required under revised OMB Circular A-123. Improvements in internal controls will further
support EPA's initiatives for improved financial performance. EPA will also continue to ensure
more accessibility to data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance
integration, and management decision-making.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$843.0) This change reflects an increase of payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$49.0) This change in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$1,350.0) This change reflects a decrease in funding received in FY 2010 for the
development of a new time and labor distribution system. The Agency's current system
(PeoplePlus) has reached the end of its lifecycle and is no longer supported by the
vendor. Replacement of PeoplePlus in concert with development of the Agency's new
financial management system and the new human resources management system will
alleviate the need to develop connectivity between the three systems.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law
and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982);
FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990);
GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC.
617
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
618
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program Area: Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,478.1
$3,776.4
$45,254.5
197.0
FY2010
Enacted
$44,789.0
$3,404.0
$48,193.0
188.6
FY2011
Pres Bud
$45,626.0
$3,350.0
$48,976.0
202.8
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$837.0
($54.0)
$783.0
14.2
Program Project Description:
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program provides health hazard assessments and
develops assessment methods. The program, which receives resources under both the Science
and Technology and the Superfund appropriations, provides the scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions to protect Americans' public health and the environment and supports the
Administrator's priorities for improving air quality, assuring the safety of chemicals and
protecting America's waters. The range of research programs and initiatives will both continue
the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health
problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as
green chemistry and green engineering.
Risk assessments and methodologies to support EPA's Superfund program are detailed in the
HHRA Multi-Year Plans (MYPs)16. This risk assessment work is informed by EPA's Superfund
research program. This Superfund research is described in the Waste Research Strategy1'', which
was developed with participation from major clients and stakeholders and outlines research
needs and priorities. Developed with input from across the Agency, including scientific staff in
the Superfund program and the Regional Offices, the MYPs outline steps for meeting the needs
of Agency programs and for evaluating progress through annual performance goals and
measures.
A subcommittee review from the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee composed of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—found that the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) had made several key advancements including
completion of a strategic plan, targeting cutting-edge risk assessments, enhancing
communication, and improving capabilities to provide assessment resources in response to
significant events. A subsequent BOSC subcommittee program review was completed in April
2008. This prospective and retrospective review evaluated the program's relevance, quality,
performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC reported that the HHRA program is making
17 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf.
619
-------
substantial and satisfactory progress in each of the above areas based both on clearly defined
milestones as well as additional support requested by EPA programs including technical support
in response to unscheduled emergency needs. The BOSC's evaluation and recommendations
provided guidance to EPA to help plan, implement, and strengthen the program. In mid 2010,
the BOSC will review the progress HHRA has made in implementing its planned research as
well as previous BOSC recommendations.
The Superfund portion of the program includes the following:
• The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)~, Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity
Values (PPRTVs), and other health hazard assessments (FY 2011 Request $2.3 million).
Based on the expressed needs of EPA's Solid Waste and Emergency Response program,
the Human Health Risk Assessment program prepares IRIS hazard characterization and
dose-response profiles for environmental pollutants of specific relevance to Superfund
site assessments and remediation. As of January 2010, more than 550 health hazard
assessments were available through IRIS, and the majority of these chemicals
assessments are relevant to Superfund's decision making. Where IRIS values are
unavailable, the HHRA program develops PPRTVs for evaluating chemical specific
exposures at Superfund sites. Support for these PPRTV assessments is provided through
EPA's Superfund Technical Support Centers. As of January 2010, new or renewed
PPRTVs had been developed for 236 chemicals.
• Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development (FY 2011 Request, $1.0
million^ As part of the Human Health Risk Assessment program's broader efforts to
improve risk assessment guidance, methods, and models, Superfund resources support
EPA's Superfund program through the development of exposure-response data arrays,
revised reference concentration (RfC) methodology and cumulative risk tools to better
estimate potential effects of exposures at Superfund sites on humans, and the consultative
support necessary for the application of these methods.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the HHRA program will continue to directly support key elements of EPA's
Strategic Plan relating to Superfund—particularly the characterization of risks, reduction of
contaminant exposures, and cleanup of contaminated sites. Risk assessment activities relevant to
Superfund cleanups will include:
• Continuing to work toward the completion of IRIS health hazard assessments for high
priority chemicals found at multiple Superfund sites and thereby contributing to decision-
making needs for Superfund and other Agency programs (also supported by HHRA under
the Science and Technology appropriation);
• Completing 50 new or renewed Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV)
which consist of provisional reference doses/concentrations (pRfD/Cs), and/or cancer
slope factors. The Solid Waste and Emergency Response program develops and
18 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
620
-------
prioritizes requests for these PPRTV's, which provide health hazard evaluations for
priority pollutants to support Agency risk management decisions;
» Communicating results of peer reviewed publications on methods and tools for assessing
cumulative risk (also supported by HHRA under the Science and Technology
appropriation); and
• Continuing to provide technical support to Superfund site and program managers on
human health risk assessment through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.
The BOSC's independent evaluations have found that PPRTVs have substantial value even
beyond their immediate purpose of supporting Superfund assessments and remediation, e.g., "In
the absence of IRIS values for a chemical, PPRTVs can have a significant impact on regulatory
decisions." To further strengthen program impact, HHRA is revising its management controls to
better incorporate both programmatic priorities and the level of effort required to increase the
number of IRIS assessments completed each year; implementing new performance measures to
improve performance management; and investigating alternative approaches for measuring
progress related to providing timely, high quality scientific assessments.
Performance Targets:
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people and
communities.
A performance measure for research activities in this program is included under the Science and
Technology Human Health Risk Assessment program. The program gauges its annual and long-
term success in meeting this objective by assessing its progress on several key measures. The
program continues to track the percent completion of key milestones, including the on-time
delivery of HHRA health assessments and technical support documents. The current IRIS
process was streamlined in 2009 in response to GAO recommendations and the program's
newest measures will be formalized and the targets for outputs adjusted accordingly.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$12.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
• (-$6.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
621
-------
• (-$20.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-$40.0) This reflects the net result of adjustments for critical equipment purchases,
repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses resulting from FTE realignments.
Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment needs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; ERDDA.
622
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
623
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,696.8
$424.1
$382.8
$19,010.1
$31,513.8
141.4
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36,286.0
154.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,800.0
$457.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$34,015.0
150.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($311.0)
$112.0
$50.0
($2,122.0)
($2,271.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Land Research program provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to
protect America's land. As such, this program is a vital component of EPA's efforts to reduce
and control chemical risks to human health and the environment. The Land Research program
provides essential research to EPA's Superfund program and Regional Offices to enable them to
accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex
contaminated sites. Research themes include contaminated sediments, groundwater, and site
characterization issues. The research program also provides site-specific technical support
through EPA labs and centers, as well as liaisons in each Regional Office. The range of research
programs and initiatives will both continue to develop a better understanding of the scientific
basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as advance the design of
sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering.
Research within this program is responsive to the Superfund law requirements under Section
209(a) of Pub. L. 99-499, which call for "...a comprehensive and coordinated Federal program of
research, development, demonstration, and training for the purpose of promoting the
development of alternative and innovative treatment technologies that can be used in response
actions under the CERCLA program." These research efforts are guided by the Land Research
program Multi-Year Plan (MYP)19 which outlines steps for meeting the needs of Agency
programs and for evaluating progress through annual performance goals and measures. To
enhance communication with customers, EPA has developed a Land Research program Web
site.20 The site includes a description of the program; fact sheets on science issues, research
activities, and research impacts; research publications and accomplishments; and links to tools
and models.
19 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, DC : EPA. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-yearplans.htmffland.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/landscience.
624
-------
The Land Protection and Restoration research program underwent an external evaluation by a
subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee
composed of independent, expert scientists and engineers. The 2009 BOSC report noted that the
program has appropriate research goals and has been responsive to prior recommendations for
strengthening the program. The program received a rating of "exceeds expectations."21
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, research will continue to advance EPA's ability to accurately characterize the
transport and uptake of chemicals from contaminated sediments and determine the range of and
scientific foundation for remedies. Research will focus on improving site characterization and
monitoring the effectiveness of remediation and evaluation of novel remedial options. This work
directly supports the program's long term goal for the mitigation, management and long term
stewardship of contaminated sites. Recent accomplishments include a study on the Ashtabula
River in Ohio, which answered science questions on sediment resuspension during dredging
remediation, as well as release and transport of contaminants from dredging sites. Similar work
on evaluating the Ottawa River dredging project in Ohio is scheduled to continue in FY 2011.
The application of Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAF) was a key component in a
recent Superfund technology transfer document on use of fish tissue data to monitor remedy
effectiveness.
Protecting America's waters is one of EPA's top priorities and efforts from the Land Research
program contribute significantly to that effort. In FY 2011, the program will collaborate with the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) on science to develop alternative technologies
for sediment remediation.
Additional planned research products for FY 2011 include key reports that will determine the
degree of resuspended sediments from dredging and assess the significance of changes in
bioavailability of organic and inorganic contaminants following resuspension and redeposition
during dredging of contaminated sediments. Consistent with the National Research Council's
report, "Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness,"22 research
will evaluate tools to assess remedy effectiveness using techniques such as:
• Passive samplers to measure bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals, BSAFs and PCB
fish tissue models,
• Statistical methods to inform sampling for chemical and biological data, and
• Methods to assess remedy performance.
The Land Research program provides leadership in groundwater research to address fate,
transport, and remediation issues. Research themes include characterization, analytical, and
modeling methods to improve exposure estimates, and remediation technologies that include in-
situ techniques, permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) for organic and metal contaminants, and
monitored natural attenuation. Recent accomplishments in groundwater remediation research
3 BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Mid-Cycle Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/landmc0901rpt.pdf.
22 For more information, see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID= 11968
625
-------
include research on the performance of PRBs as an alternative to traditional pump and treat
methods. That research produced two key reports regarding application and performance of
PRBs,23 and application of this technology continues to occur at sites such as:
• ASARCO East Helena plant in Helena, Montana, where the application of PRBs results
in the conversion and removal of mobile dissolved arsenic in groundwater, and
• Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, where PRBs replaced a failed pump and treat system,
saving Air Force resources through the lifecycle of the clean up.
Research efforts also will address monitored natural attenuation, specifically in metal
contaminated groundwater. The program published a key technical framework on monitored
natural attenuation methods for inorganic contaminants, and the technology is being transferred
to state remediation organizations. For organic contaminants, synthesis and state-of-the-science
documents will provide EPA program offices, Regional Offices, and states with remediation
technologies and long term stewardship for treatment of dense non-aqueous phase liquids, such
as trichloroethylene, in groundwater. The transport of contaminants in groundwater and the
subsequent intrusion of contaminant vapors into buildings is a critical research issue for EPA's
Superfund remediation programs. Work is ongoing to provide vapor intrusion characterization,
to develop reliable soil gas sampling methodologies, and to improve vapor intrusion modeling
capability. In FY 2011, the research program will produce a comprehensive study looking at
volatile organic compounds and radon concentration changes through a one year time frame.
Site characterization research under the Land Research program includes the development of
analytical and statistical methods, field sampling guidance, statistical software, monitoring and
remediation technologies for mining sites and technical support infrastructure needed to move
the products of these research and development activities from the lab and into the hands of site
managers and other decision makers. Recent accomplishments included a methodology that
provides for potentially rapid analysis of various forms of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Additionally, in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) methods were applied to Superfund sites in
Nebraska, where ISCO actively remediated the source area materials and groundwater.
Application of this method reduced the remediation timeframe (compared to several other
alternatives), had the least short term impacts on the community, and was cost effective. It will
reduce the highest groundwater contaminant concentrations without the need for an operations
and maintenance intensive treatment system. In FY 2011, research themes will include:
• The development and application of chemical and bio-analytical methods, and
• Development of statistical methods to reduce data uncertainly in measurement processes.
EPA has provided site-specific technical support to more than 100 cleanup program sites
annually by responding to scientific questions (e.g., engineering and groundwater issues) and
technology transfer products to EPA program offices and other stakeholders. Technical Support
Centers provide information based on research results to increase the speed and quality of
Superfund cleanups and reduce associated cleanup costs.
! For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08093/600r08093.htm
626
-------
EPA also will conduct research with an increased emphasis on asbestos health effects in order to
develop data to support dosimetric and toxicologic assessment of amphibole asbestos fiber-
containing material from Libby, Montana. This effort will address key data gaps and provide
tools for quantitative characterization, including a comparative analysis of the toxicity of
amphibole asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from Libby, Montana, relative to other asbestos
fibers and asbestos-like mineral occurrences. Reports are scheduled for publication in FY 2011
on a field sampling device that may reduce the need for activity-based sampling at Libby and
similar sites. One such report will include a manual for releasable asbestos field sampler testing
for use on contaminated soil to determine if cleanup is needed.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Land
publications in high
impact journals.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.7
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Land
publications rated as
highly cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
27.8
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the manage
material streams,
conserve resources and
appropriately manage
waste long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
mitigation,
management and long-
term stewardship of
contaminated sites
long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of Land
publications in high
impact journals.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.7
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
627
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of Land
publications rated as
highly cited
publications.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
27.8
FY2011
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the manage
material streams,
conserve resources and
appropriately manage
waste long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
mitigation,
management and long-
term stewardship of
contaminated sites
long-term goal.
FY 2009
Target
100
FY 2009
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY2011
Target
100
Units
Percent
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes. In FY 2011, the program plans to accomplish its goals of
completing and delivering 100 percent of its planned outputs. These measures address the
increasing utility of EPA research tools and technologies, as well as the reduction of uncertainty
due to utilization of research and development methodologies, models, and statistical designs. In
achieving the performance targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of applying sound
science in the protection and restoration of land.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$393.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$62.0) This represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
Research: Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
For SBIR, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
2011 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
2011 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
628
-------
• (+$25.0) This increase reflects the net result of realignments of resources such as critical
equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses to better align
with programmatic priorities. Realignments of these resources are based on FTE
allocations as well as scientific equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's workforce
management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency
priorities.
• (-$68.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$2,534.0 \ -2.5 FTE) This reduction reflects a decrease in scope for planned research in
groundwater remediation and contaminated sediments research, and includes a reduction
of 2.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $337.0. This change reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills
and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
629
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
630
-------
Research: Sustainability
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$19,445.7
$96.0
$19,541.7
64.7
FY2010
Enacted
$27,287.0
$73.0
$27,360.0
70.8
FY2011
Pres Bud
$25,292.0
$0.0
$25,292.0
70.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($1,995.0)
($73.0)
($2,068.0)
-0.1
Program Project Description:
Under the Small Business Research (SBIR) program24, as required by the Small Business Act as
amended25, EPA sets aside 2.5 percent of its extramural research budget for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. Since its inception,
EPA's SBIR program has provided incentive funding to small businesses to translate their
innovative ideas into commercial products that address environmental problems. These
innovations are the primary source of new technologies that can provide improved environmental
protection at lower cost with better performance and effectiveness.
SBIR has helped spawn successful commercial ventures that not only improve our environment,
but also create jobs, increase productivity and economic growth, and enhance the international
competitiveness of the U.S. technology industry. The range of research programs and initiatives
will both continue the work of better understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and
human health problems as well as advance the design of sustainable solutions through
approaches such as green chemistry and green engineering. SBIR, the only activity contained in
this program, is currently not funded under the Superfund account.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. The
performance measures that support this Program Project can be found in the Science and
Technology appropriation Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$73.0) This reflects an adjustment for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
Enacted funding levels for this program include the amount EPA is required to set aside
for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
For more information, see http://epa. gov/ncer/sbir.
24
25 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. For
more information, see http://thomas.loc.gov
631
-------
technologies. This adjustment is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in
the budget cycle, is redistributed to other research programs in the President's Budget
request. After the budget is enacted and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is
known, the funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
632
-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
633
-------
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$224,789.2
$224,789.2
291.7
FY2010
Enacted
$202,330.0
$202,330.0
292.4
FY2011
Pres Bud
$202,784.0
$202,784.0
292.4
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$454.0
$454.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund program was initially designed, and has been consistently used, to implement two
complementary types of response actions: remedial actions and removal actions. Remedial
actions fully address wastes at the largest, most complex contamination sites (i.e., National
Priorities List [NPL] sites). Removal actions quickly address releases, whether originating from
an NPL site or not, that pose an imminent threat to public health or welfare and the environment.
The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program addresses removal actions.
Each year, more than 30,000 emergencies involving the release (or threatened release) of oil and
hazardous substances are reported in the United States, potentially affecting both communities
and the surrounding natural environment. The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal
program ensures that releases of hazardous substances, including chemical, biological, and
radiological agents (e.g., uranium, radium, and thorium), to the environment are appropriately
addressed through either a Federal-led action or by providing technical support and oversight to
state, local, other Federal responders, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs). As the Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)26, EPA evaluates spills and responds with emergency and removal
actions to both large and small releases. This activity ensures that spills are appropriately
addressed to protect human health and the environment. EPA provides technical support at
emergency, time-critical, and non-time critical response actions. This activity also supports the
development and maintenance of the necessary response infrastructure to enable EPA to respond
effectively to accidental and intentional releases as well as natural disasters.27
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of releases, whether
accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring. EPA Federal OSCs conduct and/or provide support
for removal assessments, emergency responses, and cleanup response actions at NPL and non-
NPL sites.
26 EPA's roles and responsibilities are further outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm.
27 For more information about the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/er cleanup.htm.
634
-------
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to respond and conduct removal actions based upon the risk to
human health and the environment in urban, rural and Indian country. In recent years,
emergency response and removal activities have grown more complicated, requiring more
resources and time to complete. In addition, these activities often require personnel with
knowledge of specific hazardous substances, health and safety issues, complex options or the
utilization of emerging technologies.
EPA will continue to conduct an annual readiness training event for Federal OSCs, which is
widely attended by EPA and its government partners from other Federal agencies, states, tribes,
and local entities. This training offers courses on a variety of environmentally related emergency
response topics designed to strengthen the knowledge and skills of Federal responders. This
very successful training program is designed to ensure the readiness of EPA OSCs nationwide by
focusing on EPA's efforts to create necessary consistency across the Agency, highlight priorities
for further policy development and coordination, and strengthen partnerships with local, state,
Tribal and other Federal responders.
The Superfund Removal program has received two program assessments by OMB (2003 and
2005). As a result, the program established performance and efficiency measures and is taking
steps to improve data accuracy and completeness through continuing efforts to modernize the
program's data repository, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS).
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year effort in 2010 to explore better uses of assessment and
cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites
back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to
bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, and
Brownfields Projects), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites. One example of leveraging that EPA may explore is the use of Superfund
Emergency Response and Removal resources to assist in Brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment, when appropriate.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually per
million dollars.
FY 2009
Target
0.94
FY 2009
Actual
1.298
FY 2010
Target
0.95
FY2011
Target
0.96
Units
Removals
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
PRP removal
completions (including
voluntary, AOC, and
UAO actions) overseen
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
170
FY2011
Target
170
Units
Removals
635
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
by EPA.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Score on annual Core
NAR.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
55
FY2011
Target
60
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2009
Target
195
FY 2009
Actual
214
FY 2010
Target
170
FY2011
Target
170
Units
Removals
Due to aggressive enforcement, EPA has been able to compel PRPs to conduct additional
removal actions. A new measure has been developed to track our progress in this area. In FY
2011, EPA will oversee 170 PRP removal actions (including voluntary, Administrative Order on
Consent [AOC], and Unilateral Administrative Order [UAO] actions). In addition, EPA will
conduct 170 Superfund-lead removal actions.
For several years, EPA has been implementing an annual assessment of its response and removal
preparedness, known as Core Emergency Response (ER). In FY 2009, Core ER was expanded
to address Agency-wide implementation of EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) and
measure progress towards being ready to respond to multiple nationally significant events. The
Core NAR criteria are based on items found in EPA's Homeland Security Priority Workplan and
the NAR Preparedness Plan. The target for FY 2011 is to maintain a readiness score of 60
percent. There are three components of Core NAR: headquarters, Regional offices, and Special
Teams.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,180.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$645.0) This decrease reflects EPA's efforts to approach PRPs earlier in the process as
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances are identified to increase PRP
involvement in conducting removal actions.
• (-$81.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
636
-------
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,934.8
$9,934.8
41.1
FY2010
Enacted
$9,632.0
$9,632.0
44.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$9,776.0
$9,776.0
44.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$144.0
$144.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA implements the Emergency Preparedness program in coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies to deliver Federal assistance to state, local,
and Tribal governments during natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. The
Agency carries out this responsibility under multiple statutory authorities as well as the National
Response Framework (NRF), which provides the comprehensive Federal structure for managing
national emergencies. EPA is the designated lead for the NRF's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex - Emergency Support Function #10 which covers hazardous materials, oil, and
other contaminants. As such, the Agency participates with interagency committees and
workgroups to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
EPA also chairs the 16-agency National Response Team (NRT) and co-chairs multiple Regional
Response Teams (RRTs) throughout the United States. These teams coordinate the actions of
Federal partners to prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Preparedness on a national level is essential to ensure that EPA, other Federal agencies, and
state, local and Tribal emergency responders are able to deal with multiple emergencies. This
program will continue to enhance the Agency's readiness capabilities in FY 2011 through
ongoing internal and external coordination with those agencies.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to chair and provide administrative and logistical support to the
NRT and co-chair the 13 RRTs throughout the United States. The NRT and RRTs coordinate
Federal partner actions to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from releases of
hazardous substances, terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies, whether
accidental or intentional. The NRT and the RRTs are the only active environmentally-focused
interagency executive committees addressing oil and hazardous substance emergencies.
Building on current efforts to enhance national emergency response management, NRT agencies
will continue implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the
NRF. NRT agencies will improve notification and response procedures, develop response
637
-------
technical assistance documents, implement and test incident command/unified command systems
across all levels of government and the private sector, and assist in the development of Regional
Contingency Plans and Local Area Plans.
In FY 2011, EPA will provide and participate in training and exercises to continue fostering a
working relationship between state, local, Tribal, and Federal responders implementing the
system. EPA will lead participants in the development of scenario-specific national and regional
level plans to respond to large scale events and incidents of national significance.
EPA also will continue to provide staff support as needed during national disasters, emergencies
and other high profile, large-scale responses carried out under the NRF. When activated under
the NRF, EPA supports activities at the NRT, RRTs, Domestic Readiness Group, and the
National Operations Center.
As part of its strategy for improving effectiveness, the Agency will continue to improve response
readiness in FY 2011 through information obtained from the Agency's National Approach to
Response (NAR). EPA's NAR ensures efficient use of emergency response assets within the
Agency by maintaining highly skilled technical personnel in the field and ensuring their
readiness to respond to releases of dangerous materials without compromising health and safety.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports restoring land. Currently, there are no performance measures
for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$178.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$34.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; CWA; OP A; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
638
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$32,761.5
$32,761.5
138.1
FY2010
Enacted
$32,105.0
$32,105.0
144.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$31,543.0
$31,543.0
162.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($562.0)
($562.0)
17.9
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program leads the government in achieving
accelerated, protective, and efficient cleanup and reuse of Federal facility sites. Nationwide,
there are thousands of Federal facilities that are contaminated with hazardous waste, military
munitions, radioactive waste, fuels, and a variety of other toxic contaminants. These facilities
include various types of sites, such as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), active, realigning
and closed military installations, abandoned mines, nuclear weapons production facilities, fuel
distribution areas, and landfills. EPA fulfills a number of statutory and regulatory obligations at
Federal facilities, including assessing sites for potential listing on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL), conducting oversight of NPL where cleanup is being done by other Federal
agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE), and
enforcing statutorily required Federal facility agreements. EPA's oversight authority helps
Federal agencies to be more efficient and to cleanup their sites faster while protecting human
health and the environment. In fulfilling its management responsibilities, the program
collaborates with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, Tribes, and communities.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also provides technical assistance to other
Federal entities, states, tribes, local governments, and communities during the cleanup of Federal
properties. The program ensures statutory responsibilities related to the transfer of contaminated
Federal properties at both NPL and non-NPL sites are met. Such responsibilities include the
approval authority for transfers prior to implementation of remedies at NPL sites (i.e., early
transfer), and for determinations that remedies are operating "properly and successfully" at both
NPL and non-NPL sites. Often EPA, and the parties implementing the remedies, face unique
challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the facility, the extent of
contamination, ongoing facility operations needs, complex community involvement
requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the facilities. For more
information about the program, please refer to httjK//www.e]^^
639
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to help ensure the safe reuse of former Federal properties and the
safe continued use of facilities under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. EPA will
continue working with state and local governments, tribes, communities, and transferees to
ensure properties transferred will be reused in a safe and productive manner. At properties that
remain under Federal jurisdiction and control, EPA will continue working with the other Federal
agencies to ensure that cleanup remedies are appropriate for continued Federal use.
EPA will continue developing policies, tools, and measures to support green remediation
principles. The Agency strives to utilize its resources so that cleanup activities use natural
resources and energy efficiently, reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or
eliminate pollution at its source, and reduce waste to the greatest extent possible.
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of the Superfund
Federal Facility Response program, EPA initiated a multi-year effort in 2010 to explore better
uses of assessment and cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate
cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the
environment. By bringing to bear the relevant tools in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund
Remedial, Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities
Response, and Brownfields Projects), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address
needs at individual sites.
For example, EPA is pursuing program efficiencies to improve the management of the program
and increase joint efforts among programs as well as defining and implementing new
performance measures that further describe the achievements of EPA's cleanup programs. As an
early step toward an improved Superfund Remedial program measurement, in FY 2011, EPA
will implement a new measure, Number of Remedial Action (RA) Projects28 Completed at
Superfund NPL Sites, to augment the site-wide construction completion measure described
below.
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue focusing on achieving site-wide construction completions,
accelerating cleanups, promoting reuse of current and formerly owned Federal properties, and
ensuring appropriate community involvement at Federal facilities on the NPL. As of October
2009, there were: 173 final and deleted NPL Federal facilities, 77 Federal facilities with a final
remedy selected, 65 Federal facilities that had achieved site-wide construction completion, and
32 Federal facilities identified as site-wide ready for anticipated use. EPA provides oversight
and technical assistance on 379 ongoing remedial investigations/feasibility studies and 200
ongoing remedial actions at NPL Federal facilities.
28 Projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as described in the Record of Decision. They are
typically defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g.,
discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). A given remedy may contain multiple
actions or projects depending on the nature of the remedy selected
640
-------
NPL Federal Facilities by Agency
(Final and Deleted)
DoE(21)
12%
Other (13)
8%
DLA (5)
3%
Air Force (37)
21%
Navy (54)
31%
Army (43)
25%
*Other Federal Agencies include: U.S. Coast Guard (1), Dept. of Interior (2), Dept. of Transportation (1), EPA (1), Federal
Aviation Administration (1), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2), National Guard (1), Small Business
Administration (1), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1), and U.S. Dept. Agriculture (2). Source: CERCLIS December 2009
In FY 2011, EPA will continue providing oversight and technical assistance, as appropriate, at
DOD's military munitions response sites. DOD's FY 2008 Defense Environmental Programs
Report to Congress29 states there are currently 3,674 munitions response sites in DOD's
inventory.
EPA will continue monitoring the progress and improving the quality and consistency of five-
year reviews being conducted at Federal sites where waste has been left in place and land use is
restricted. In FY 2011, EPA will review approximately 32 five-year review reports at Federal
facility NPL sites to fulfill statutory requirements and inform the public regarding the
protectiveness of remedies at those facilities.
The Agency will continue working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and states in the
cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) properties.
FUSRAP properties are contaminated with radioactive materials and mixed waste resulting from
the nation's early atomic weapons and energy program. EPA will continue working with DOE
in maximizing the progress of cleanup and reducing the footprint of its legacy properties.
The Agency also will continue supporting DOD at selected Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) installations that have been closed or realigned during the first four rounds of BRAC
(BRAC I-IV). EPA's BRAC I-IV accelerated cleanup program is funded by DOD through an
http://deparc.xservices.com/do/home
641
-------
interagency agreement which is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. This includes, but
is not limited to, meeting and expediting statutory obligations for overseeing cleanup and
facilitating property transfer. EPA's FY 2011 request does not include additional support for
BRAC-related services to DOD at BRAC V facilities. If EPA services are required at levels
above its base for BRAC V related installations, the Agency will require reimbursement from
DOD for the costs the Agency incurs to provide those services.
EPA will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase efficiency. In
FY 2011, EPA will review how to reduce the overhead cost associated with the Superfund
Federal Facilities Response program. This review is to find efficiencies in EPA contracting and
similar or related processes used to support the program (e.g., contracts, interagency agreements,
and cooperative agreements). EPA also will establish a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) to
support the Agency in implementing its national Federal Facility Superfund program. The FAC
will provide advice and recommendations on environmental issues and programs related to
ensuring long-term protectiveness and appropriate reuse/redevelopment of formerly
contaminated Federal sites. The Advisory Committee, with the assistance of other Federal
agencies, Tribes, state and local governments, and community groups will facilitate a more
effective discussion of the technical issues and policy options that will support adequate
evaluation of, and input into Agency positions and actions regarding contaminated Federal sites.
The projected outcome of the FAC will be statutory and policy recommendations to improve the
protectiveness and utilization of military and non-military properties.
As a result of an OMB program performance assessment in FY 2005, EPA has been
strengthening its partnerships with other Federal agencies to achieve long-term environmental
goals. These efforts will continue in FY 2011. In addition, the Agency conducted an evaluation
in FY 2008 and 2009 to assess and improve performance accuracy of regional target-setting for
site cleanup milestones. EPA is currently implementing several of the evaluation's
recommendations and will continue to implement additional recommendations in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars
expended annually per
operable unit
completing cleanup
activities.
FY 2009
Target
813
FY 2009
Actual
969
FY 2010
Target
813
FY2011
Target
750
Units
Thousand
Dollar
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where all
remedies have
completed
construction.
FY 2009
Target
64
FY 2009
Actual
65
FY 2010
Target
68
FY2011
Target
70
Units
Sites
642
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where the final
remedial decision for
contaminants at the site
has been determined.
FY 2009
Target
77
FY 2009
Actual
77
FY 2010
Target
92
FY2011
Target
104
Units
Sites
Performance goals and measures in EPA's Strategic Plan and Government Performance and
Results Act for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program are currently a component of
the overall Superfund Remedial program's measures. EPA's ability to meet its annual Superfund
targets is partially dependent on the performance of other Federal agencies that have the lead in
cleaning up their facilities on the NPL.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$619.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$19.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$1,162.0) This reduction implements an Agency review to streamline oversight of our
Federal partners and to find program efficiencies in data management support.
• (+17.9 FTE) This change reflects a redirection of reimbursable FTE from the BRAC
program to the Federal Facilities Response program. The additional FTE will support
increased workload needs at non-BRAC I-IV sites, such as the U.S. Military's buildup in
Guam, DOE and U.S. Coast Guard. Sufficient reimbursable FTE are retained to support
BRAC program needs, which continue to decline as more BRAC sites are cleaned up or
transferred.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Section 120/SARA, Section 311; RCRA, Section 7003; Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2004 as amended by the National Defense
Authorization Acts and the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance
Act; Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, Section 3 [CERCLA 120(h)(4)
uncontaminated parcels determinations]; National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007,
Section 2404; NEPA, Section 102; and CAA, Section 309.
643
-------
Superfund: Remedial
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land; Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,242,201.2
$669,293.0
$572,908.2
$1,242,201.2
976.1
FY2010
Enacted
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$0.0
$605,438.0
944.2
FY2011
Pres Bud
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$0.0
$605,438.0
945.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
1.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Remedial program addresses risks to human health and the environment resulting
from uncontrolled releases at Superfund sites in order to make our communities safer and
healthier. Superfund sites with contaminated soils, sediments, surface water, and groundwater
exist nationally in hundreds of communities and can encompass very large land areas. Many of
these sites are located in urban areas and, therefore, may expose higher numbers of sensitive
populations to contamination. Once contaminated, groundwater, surface water, sediments, and
soils may be technically challenging and costly to remediate. Some Superfund sites require
decades to clean up due to site-specific physical characteristics; their associated unique
contamination footprints; the political, community, and legal complexities involved to address
the site; and the resources required to cleanup the site. For some sites, removing or destroying
all of the contamination is not possible, and residual contamination needs to be managed on-site,
creating the need for site-specific long-term stewardship activities.
The Superfund Remedial program manages the risks to human health and the environment posed
by these uncontrolled hazardous wastes at the nation's highest priority sites through carefully
selected cleanup, stabilization, or other actions. Resources in this program are used to:
• collect and analyze data at sites to determine the potential effect of contaminants on
human health and the environment and the need for an EPA Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response;
• ensure the highest priority releases are addressed by adding sites to the National Priorities
List (NPL);
• engage with local communities as each site goes through the Superfund response process;
• conduct or oversee investigations and studies to select remedies;
• design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-construction activities
at non-Federal facility sites;
• control human exposures to contamination and prevent the spread of contaminated
groundwater;
644
-------
• ensure long-term protectiveness of remedies by overseeing operations and maintenance
and conducting five-year reviews;
• delete sites (or parts of sites) from the NPL where appropriate;
• identify where sites can be made available for reuse; and
• collaboratively work with other Federal agencies, Congress, states, tribes, local
governments, and local communities from the time a site is discovered until it is cleaned
up and returned to productive reuse in a community.
For more information about the Superfund Remedial program and its community involvement
resources, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund.
The Superfund Remedial program received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/
and http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, as in prior years, reducing risk to human health and the environment by constructing
long-term remedies to address contaminated sites on the NPL remains the top priority of the
Superfund Remedial program. EPA will continue to address complicated environmental and
human health problems such as contaminated soils in residential areas and contaminated
sediments, surface water and groundwater. The Agency's goal is ultimately to provide long-term
human health and environmental protection at the nation's most contaminated hazardous waste
sites, and return sites to communities. In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund Remedial
program will, where appropriate, undertake interim response actions to protect people and the
environment from the acute threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes or contaminated
groundwater. These efforts demonstrate EPA's commitment to protecting human health and the
environment from possible short- and long-term effects of site-related contamination.
EPA will continue to assess actual or potential releases at sites where EPA has been notified by
states, tribes, community members, other Federal agencies, or other sources of a potential
hazardous waste site or incident. EPA assesses these sites to determine whether Federal action is
needed. EPA, states and our Federal partners have made progress towards reducing the number
of sites needing final assessment decisions. At the beginning of FY 2011, the Agency will have
completed assessment work at nearly 41,000 sites and there will be approximately 3,800 sites
that still need assessment. In addition, EPA has an active pre-screening process which allows
prioritization of sites for efficient use of Agency resources. The number of final assessment
decisions made each year exceeds the number of new sites being identified by EPA each year.
EPA has revised its target to align with the current universe of sites that still require final
decisions. EPA plans to complete 325 site assessment decisions in FY 2011.
For those sites requiring additional Federal actions to protect human health and the environment,
EPA's NPL identifies sites that contain priority releases for long-term remedial evaluation and
response. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Fund-financed remedial action. Sites posing
immediate risks also may be addressed under the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal
program. In FY 2011, EPA will continue investigating sites to determine the best approach to
address these sites, including listing them on the NPL. As in past years, EPA expects there will
be two final NPL rule makings during FY 2011.
645
-------
At NPL sites, EPA will continue to begin remedial work with remedial investigations and
feasibility studies to review site conditions and evaluate strategies for cleanup, taking into
consideration reasonably anticipated future land use. Multiple cleanup actions are required at
many sites to address all the contamination. In FY 2011, a significant number of sites will
require further characterization before remedy decisions can be made and construction can take
place. Community involvement is a key component in selecting the proper remedy at a site. The
Agency will continue to engage the community from the time a site is discovered until it is
cleaned up in all aspects of its decision-making, remedy implementation and construction
activities.
To support the scientific integrity in the Agency's decision making process of site cleanup
alternatives, EPA maintains a full array of direct site support services. The Agency provides
reliable and high quality analytical services for use at sites (e.g., support for the Contract
Laboratory Program, support to staff Regional labs, and special analytical services and analyses)
and maintains an Environmental Response Team which is available to support the site-specific
needs of emergency responders, on-scene coordinators, and remedial project managers in
conducting assessments, investigations and clean-ups. EPA also ensures the professional
development of its staff through an extensive technical training program which is also available
to States, tribes, and our Federal partners and employs an active and comprehensive technology
assessment and integration program to provide staff with information on new technologies, direct
site support to employ technologies, technology training, and support to optimize the clean-up
process.
EPA has increasingly focused resources on constructing a remedy which prevents contaminants
from spreading through the soil, surface water, or groundwater. However, prior to remedy
construction, EPA conducts the remedial design (RD) for the site cleanup where the technical
specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies are designed based on the Record of
Decision (ROD). Following the RD, the actual construction or implementation of the cleanup
remedy (called the Remedial Action [RA]) will be performed by EPA (or states with EPA
funding) or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under EPA or state oversight. EPA is
committed to providing resources to maintain construction progress at all projects30, including
large and complicated remedial projects, once construction has started. Funding for EPA
Superfund construction projects is critical to achieving risk reduction, construction completion
and restoration of contaminated sites to allow productive reuse. In FY 2011, EPA will continue
to work to improve long-term planning construction estimates, including planning for the use of
resources received from settlements with PRPs that have been placed in special accounts for
future response work.
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year effort in 2010 to explore better uses of assessment and
cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites
back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to
30 Projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as described in the Record of Decision. They are
typically defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g.,
discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). A given remedy may contain multiple
actions or projects depending on the nature of the remedy selected.
646
-------
bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, and
Brownfields Projects), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites.
For example, EPA is pursuing program efficiencies to improve the management of the program
and increase joint efforts among programs, as well as, defining and implementing new
performance measures that further describe the achievement of EPA's cleanup programs. As an
early step toward an improved Superfund Remedial program measurement, in FY 2011, EPA
will implement a new measure, Number of Remedial Action (RA) Projects Completed at
Superfund NPL sites, to augment the site-wide construction completion measure described
below. The FY 2011 target is 103 RA Projects Completed, a portion of which are being funded
using ARRA monies.
EPA tracks site-wide construction completions as an interim measure of progress toward making
sites ready for reuse and achieving site cleanup goals. Sites qualify for construction completion
when: (1) all necessary physical construction identified in a ROD is complete, whether final
cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction; or (3) the site
qualifies for deletion from the NPL. EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that all
cleanup objectives have been met and no further response is required to protect human health or
the environment. In FY 2011, EPA estimates it will achieve 25 site construction completions (as
compared to 20 in FY 2009) for a cumulative total of 1127 NPL sites, and it will continue to
delete sites from the NPL as appropriate. The increase in the FY 2011 construction completion
target is due, in part, to the availability of ARRA funding that accelerated work being performed
at certain Superfund sites.
EPA will continue to give attention to post-construction completion activities to ensure that
Superfund response actions provide for the long-term protection of human health and the
environment. A significant statutorily required post-construction activity is a Five-Year Review,
which generally is necessary when hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that permit
unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Five-Year Reviews are used to evaluate the
implementation and performance of all components of the implemented remedy and to determine
whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. The Five-Year
Review includes not only the physical remedy itself, but also institutional controls necessary to
manage the use of the site. In recent years, EPA has made significant improvements in the
tracking and evaluation of institutional controls including launching a publicly accessible
database. Five-Year Reviews are usually performed not once, but at five-year intervals so long
as waste remains in place. EPA plans to conduct over 200 Five-Year Reviews in FY 2011.
The future use of NPL sites plays an important role in revitalizing communities and ensuring the
long-term protection of human health and the environment. While cleaning up these sites, EPA
is working with communities and other partners in considering and integrating appropriate future
use opportunities into remedy options. The Agency also is working with communities at sites
that have already been remediated to ensure long-term stewardship of site remedies and to create
opportunities for reuse. In May 2006, EPA established the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
647
-------
measure, which communicates that all cleanup goals for an entire site have been achieved for
both current and reasonably anticipated future land uses. The measure reflects the high priority
EPA places on land revitalization as an integral part of the Agency's mission for the Superfund
program as well as the priority EPA is now placing on post-construction activities at NPL sites.
In FY 2011, EPA anticipates achieving a net total of 65 sites qualified for this designation
bringing the program's cumulative total to 538 sites.
EPA reports against two environmental indicator measures to document progress achieved
toward providing short- and long-term human health protection. The Site-Wide Human Exposure
environmental indicator is designed to document the progress achieved toward providing long-
term human health protection by measuring the incremental progress achieved in controlling
unacceptable current human exposures at a NPL site. In FY 2011, EPA will achieve control of
all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of 10 additional sites, bringing the
program's cumulative total to 1,339 sites under control. The Migration of Contaminated
Groundwater Under Control environmental indicator applies to NPL sites that contain
contaminated groundwater and serves to document whether contamination levels fall within the
levels specified as safe by EPA, or if they do not, whether the migration of contaminated
groundwater is stabilized, and there is no groundwater discharge to surface water. In FY 2011,
EPA will achieve control of the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered
remedies or natural processes at a net total of 15 additional sites, bringing the program's
cumulative total to 1,041 sites under control.
During FY 2011, EPA will implement data management support cost reductions identified
during reviews held in FY 2010 of data systems supporting the Superfund remedial program.
For example, the Agency is consolidating existing data systems (e.g. CERCLIS, SDMS, etc.)
into the replacement system [Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)]. In addition,
EPA will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase efficiency in
other areas such as reducing overhead costs and finding efficiencies in contracting and similar or
related processes used to support the program.
In FY 2011, the Superfund Remedial program will support the Agency's Healthy Communities
initiative through strengthening our partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
cleaning up contaminated sediments in urban rivers adjacent to Superfund sites. In addition,
EPA will continue coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and consulting engineers
to analyze staging options for large complex design and construction projects. The effort will
augment the Agency's outreach to the Regional offices by expanding their access to technical
resources to help promote the efficiency of project delivery and to facilitate project progress
through the Superfund pipeline. EPA will work on optimizing groundwater remedies and
sharing best practices with Regional offices for cost management and efficiency improvements.
The Agency strives to ensure that its activities use natural resources and energy efficiently,
reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, and
reduce waste to the greatest extent possible. In FY 2011, EPA will continue its efforts to
advance green remediation practices and identify new opportunities and tools to make "greener"
decisions across Superfund cleanup sites.
648
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Number of remedial
action project
completions at
Superfund NPL Sites.
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Actual
97
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY2011
Target
103
Units
Completions
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Superfund
sites ready for
anticipated use site-
wide.
FY 2009
Target
65
FY 2009
Actual
66
FY 2010
Target
65
FY2011
Target
65
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Annual number of
Superfund sites with
remedy construction
completed.
FY 2009
Target
20
FY 2009
Actual
20
FY 2010
Target
22
FY2011
Target
25
Units
Completions
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Number of Superfund
sites with human
exposures under
control.
FY 2009
Target
10
FY 2009
Actual
11
FY 2010
Target
10
FY2011
Target
10
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Superfund sites with
contaminated
groundwater migration
under control.
FY 2009
Target
15
FY 2009
Actual
16
FY 2010
Target
15
FY2011
Target
15
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Human exposures
under control per
million dollars.
FY 2009
Target
6.7
FY 2009
Actual
8.5
FY 2010
Target
7
FY2011
Target
7.3
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Superfund final site
assessment decisions
completed.
FY 2009
Target
400
FY 2009
Actual
400
FY 2010
Target
330
FY2011
Target
325
Units
Assessments
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA
funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
649
-------
The Superfund Remedial program reports its activities and progress toward long-term human
health and environmental protection via several measures that encompass the entire cleanup
process. In addition, the program also tracks efficiency by measuring the number of NPL sites
with human exposure under control per million dollars. In FY 2009, the Superfund Remedial
program met or exceeded all of its performance measure targets. In FY 2011, the program plans
to continue to maintain progress achieving the program's long-term goals. In addition, as noted
above, EPA has added a new measure for Superfund NPL RA project completions in order to
measure and evaluate the progress of cleanup activities between the time a site is placed on the
NPL and construction is completed, which often spans multiple years due to the complexity of
cleanup efforts.
Performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program are a
component of the Superfund Remedial program's measures.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$5,007.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$527.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$4,419.0) This reduction implements an Agency review intended to improve the
effectiveness of our acquisition practices and to realize contract efficiencies in areas such
as data management support.
• (-$23.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
the Computer Security Incident Response Center from across programs to the
Information Security program.
• (-$175.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which
funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life,
terrestrial plants and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this database in the
past.
• (+$137.07 +1.0 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll of 1 FTE to support the
Agency's Healthy Communities initiative. This FTE will coordinate with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on sediment cleanup projects in urban waters which will enable the
Agency to leverage resources from our Federal partners as part of the overall site
cleanup.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA of 1980, Section 104, as amended by SARA of 1986, as reauthorized as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
650
-------
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,920.0
$5,920.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($655.0)
($655.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Other Federal agencies are given responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These agencies provide numerous
Superfund-related services which Superfund resources support. Contributors include the
Department of Interior (DOT), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to provide resources through interagency agreements to
support other Federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding proposed to
be provided to each Federal agency in EPA's FY 2011 request:
Other Federal Agency Funding
($ in thousands)
Agency
DOT
NOAA
USCG
TOTAL
FY 2010 Enacted
$546.0
$1,063.0
$4,966.0
$6,575.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
$492.0
$957.0
$4,471.0
$5,920.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud v.
FY 2010 Enacted
($54.0)
($106.0)
($495.0)
($655.0)
Under the EPA/DOI interagency agreement, DOT provides response preparedness and
management assistance that supports the National Response Team/Regional Response Teams
(NRT/RRTs), EPA's Special Units including the Environmental Response Team, the National
Decontamination Team, and the Radiation Response Team. In addition, DOT provides assistance
in the development and implementation of comprehensive and environmentally protective
remedies at Superfund sites as well as the coordination of natural resource trustee agency31
support. DOT provides technical assistance at Superfund sites in areas of their expertise, such as
ecological risk assessment, habitat mitigation and identification of damages to natural resources.
31 Natural Resource Trustees are outlined in CERCLA and have different, but complementary, roles and responsibilities. For
more information, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/fields.pdf.
651
-------
Under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, EPA Regional Offices are provided access to
NOAA's multidisciplinary technical support experts in the fields of coastal remediation,
scientific support coordination and response management. NOAA, which is also a natural
resource trustee agency, provides site-specific technical coordination support during site
investigations, assistance on ecological risk assessments. NOAA's experts produce evaluations
of risk to the environment and natural resources from releases at Superfund sites, development
and implementation of comprehensive environmentally protective remedies to minimize those
risks, and coordination of trustee support.
Under the EPA/USCG interagency agreement, USCG and EPA are Federal partners who share
lead responsibilities under CERCLA for response actions. The USCG, serving as a Federal On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC), will conduct small scale Superfund removals in the coastal zone of
any release or threatened release into the environment of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
welfare or the environment. In FY 2011, EPA funding will continue to support the USCG's
preparation efforts to respond to CERCLA incidents, but the funding will be reduced for certain
activities, including:
• Reducing support at the National Response Center;
• Reducing maintenance and support at all USCG District Marine Safety Units and the
hazardous material Strike Team; and
• Reducing training and exercise opportunities that the USCG and EPA and other Federal
partners participate in to maintain response readiness.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective for restoring land. Currently, there are no
separate performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$655.0) This reflects a decrease to contracts to better align resources with Agency
priorities. This program reduction reduces support to such activities as the National
Response Center and the USCG District Marine Safety Units; however, it is not expected
to directly impede Superfund program performance.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106, 120; CWA; OPA.
652
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table 654
Program Projects in LUST 654
Program Area: Compliance 656
Compliance Assistance and Centers 657
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 659
IT / Data Management 660
Program Area: Operations and Administration 662
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 663
Acquisition Management 665
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 666
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 668
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 669
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 672
LUST/UST 673
LUST Cooperative Agreements 676
LUST Prevention 678
Program Area: Enforcement 680
Civil Enforcement 681
653
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Dollars
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$113,264.0
$192,024.0
$305,288.0
65.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$113,101.0
$113,101.0
75.3
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$113,219.0
$113,219.0
74.2
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$118.0
$118.0
-1.1
Bill Language: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities
authorized by subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, [$113,101,000]
$113,219,000, to remain available until expended, of which [$78,671,000] $78,789,000 shall be
for carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended; $34,430,000 shall be for carrying out the
other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code, as amended: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to use
appropriations made available under this heading to implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to provide financial assistance to federally recognized Indian tribes for the
development and implementation of programs to manage underground storage
tanks.(Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2010.)
Program Projects in LUST
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$802.4
$164.3
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$797.0
$162.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$847.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$847.0
($797.0)
($162.0)
654
-------
Program Project
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST / UST
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
LUST / UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST / UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
LUST Cooperative Agreements (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Prevention
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
Subtotal, LUST Prevention
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Recovery Act Resources
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$696.0
$199.5
$895.5
$139.8
$1,109.6
$3.0
$2,147.9
$424.1
$12.6
$10,874.5
$10,887.1
$3,445.1
$61,419.3
$64,864.4
$33,973.8
$33,973.8
$109,725.3
$192,024.0
$305,288.0
FY2010
Enacted
$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
$1,115.0
$0.0
$2,184.0
$345.0
$0.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$109,613.0
$113,101.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$696.0
$220.0
$916.0
$165.0
$1,050.0
$0.0
$2,131.0
$457.0
$0.0
$12,162.0
$12,162.0
$0.0
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$109,784.0
$113,219.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$12.0
$12.0
$0.0
($65.0)
$0.0
($53.0)
$112.0
$0.0
$549.0
$549.0
$0.0
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$171.0
$118.0
655
-------
Program Area: Compliance
656
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$802.4
$293.5
$22.0
$26,113.9
179.8
FY2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:
To improve compliance with environmental laws, regulated entities, Federal agencies, and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To protect our nation's groundwater and
drinking water from petroleum releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST), this program
provides compliance assistance tools, technical assistance, and training to promote and enforce
UST systems compliance and cleanups.1
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will merge the Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance
Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs
to more fully integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance efforts.
Therefore, the FY 2011 Compliance and Assistance and Centers program's activities and
performance plan are incorporated into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
programs.
Performance Targets:
The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement program project, where these resources have been realigned.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$797.07 -4.8 FTE) This shift of resources out of the LUST appropriation, including 4.8
FTE and associated payroll of $764.0, reflects the Agency's efforts to realign the
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.
657
-------
enforcement program by integrating the Compliance Assistance and Centers program into
the Civil Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
PPA: CERFA: NEPA: AEA: UMTRLWA: RCRA.
658
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
659
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$90,809.5
$3,852.1
$164.3
$36.3
$17,266.1
$112,128.3
484.6
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$98,060.0
$4,111.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$118,891.0
489.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$650.0
($274.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($367.0)
($177.0)
-13.8
Program Project Description:
The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) program supports the development,
collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and
ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at
the national, program, and regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable
information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access. IT/DM manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. And IT/DM
supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental
programs, and telecommunications.
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive
purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access;
geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/IM) policy and
planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance
(IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM infrastructure. The activities funded
under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) appropriation are IT/IM infrastructure
and Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME).
The IT/Data Management LUST resources provided EPA's "Readiness to Serve" IT
infrastructure program. These funds are now being shifted to EPM. This program delivered
secure information services to ensure that the Agency and its programs had a full range of
information technology infrastructure components that made information accessible across the
spectrum of mission needs at all locations. The program used performance-based, outsourced
services to obtain the best solutions (value for cost) for the range of program needs. This
included innovative multi-year leasing that sustained and renewed technical services in a least-
660
-------
cost, stable manner as technology changed over time (e.g. desktop hardware, software and
maintenance).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the work previously supported by LUST appropriation will be continued under
Environmental Program and Management appropriation. This realignment provides more
efficient accounting of this program funding.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$162.0) This change eliminates the use of LUST appropriation and shifts resources to
Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient accounting
of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being performed.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA;
SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA;
CSA; PR; EFOIA.
661
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
662
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program provide activities and support services in
many centralized administrative areas at EPA. LUST resources for this program support a full
range of ongoing facilities management services including rental payments for laboratory and
office facilities, health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical
monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety, environmental management functions, facilities
maintenance and operations, security, space planning, shipping and receiving, property
management, printing and reproduction, mail management, and transportation services.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
• For FY 2011, the Agency is requesting a total of $0.7 million for rent and $0.07 million
for transit subsidy in the LUST appropriation.
• The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that
monthly billing statements are correct.
• EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
13ISO2 Federal Workforce Transportation.
2 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
663
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$16.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy cost.
• (-$4.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; annual Appropriations
Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Homeland
Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
664
-------
Acquisition Management
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$31,332.7
$139.8
$23,521.1
$54,993.6
339.7
FY2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2011
Pres Bud
$33,934.0
$165.0
$24,337.0
$58,436.0
363.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$1,530.0
$0.0
($347.0)
$1,183.0
0.1
Program Project Description:
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) resources in the Acquisition Management program
support contract and acquisition management activities at headquarters, Regional offices,
Research Triangle Park, and Cincinnati offices. Sound contract management fosters efficiency
and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of its LUST-related procurement activities and in fostering
relationships with state and local governments to support the implementation of environmental
programs.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to refine electronic government capabilities and enhance
the education of its contract workforce. In addition, LUST resources will support the full range
of acquisition management activities for the underground tanks programs.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FAR; contract law.
665
-------
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This support
involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices - the Office
of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office
of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$89,875.3
$1,109.6
$24,154.9
$115,139.8
530.2
FY2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$86,039.0
$1,050.0
$26,934.0
$114,023.0
547.1
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$3,205.0
($65.0)
($556.0)
$2,584.0
-0.6
Program Project Description:
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program support the management
of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management, performance and accountability
processes, and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. This includes developing,
managing, and supporting a goals-based management system for the Agency that involves
strategic planning and accountability for environmental, fiscal, and managerial results; providing
policy, systems, training, reports, and oversight essential for the financial operations of EPA;
coordinating the Agencywide planning processes for the Working Capital Fund; providing
financial payment and support services for EPA through three finance centers, as well as
specialized fiscal and accounting services for many EPA programs; and managing the Agency's
annual budget process. GPRA coordination is also a priority. (Refer to
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for additional information).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management of the Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) program through the use of routine and ad hoc analysis,
statistical sampling, and other evaluation tools. In addition, more structured and more targeted
use of performance measurements has led to better understanding of program impacts as well as
leverage points to increase effectiveness.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
Currently, there are no
666
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12.07 -1.1 FTE) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of
living for existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base
workforce costs. It also shifts FTE and associated payroll to reflect EPA's workforce
management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency
priorities.
• (-$53.0) This change reduces non-payroll LUST resources to better align resources with
historical utilization and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law
and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA (1982);
FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990);
GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC.
667
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
668
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,696.8
$424.1
$382.8
$19,010.1
$31,513.8
141.4
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345. 0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36,286.0
154.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,800.0
$457.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$34,015.0
150.7
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($311.0)
$112.0
$50.0
($2,122.0)
($2,271.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) research focuses on the assessment and cleanup of
leaks at fueling stations, especially identifying the environmental impacts of existing and new
biofuels coming into the marketplace. EPA's Land Research program provides the scientific
foundation for the Agency's actions to protect America's land and ground water resources
impacted by the nation's more than 600 thousand underground fuel storage tanks. The purpose
of the Land Protection LUST research program is the prevention and control of pollution at
LUST sites, and is of high importance to state environmental programs.
The range of research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better
understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as
advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering. Specific activities in the LUST Land Research program include the
development of source term and transport modeling modules for use by state project managers
and the development of multiple remediation approaches applicable to spilled fuels, with or
without oxygenates.
As the varieties of commercially used fuels increase, the Agency needs to:
• Determine how these new fuels affect the existing fueling station infrastructure,
• Determine ways to monitor potential leaks as a function of the infrastructure and fuel
type, and
• Develop the risk management approaches to control and remediate these leaks to protect
water supplies.
The Land Research program, in collaboration with the California Department of Health Services
and the University of California, has demonstrated that ethanol in the fuel supply can result in
669
-------
extended petroleum hydrocarbon plumes, increasing water supply vulnerability.3 Overlaying
this issue is the increase in water demands seen nationally, which has become more pronounced
because of droughts experienced in many parts of the country. In areas with greater population
density, there are a greater number of fueling stations and higher water demands to support the
population. With the water utilities in these areas pumping more wells at a higher rate, combined
with the potential for ethanol to expand the hydrocarbon plumes, leaks from underground storage
tanks may impair or reduce the availability of drinking water supplies.
These research efforts are guided by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)4, developed with input
from across the Agency, which outlines steps for meeting the needs of Agency programs and for
evaluating progress through annual performance goals and measures. To enhance
communication with customers, EPA developed a Land Research program Web site.5 This site
includes a description of the program; fact sheets (science issues, program research, and
impacts); research publications and accomplishments; and links to tools and models.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, resources will continue to be utilized to address prevention and control.
Underground storage tank research will focus more on biofuels, as increased ethanol and
biodiesel use changes contaminant composition and susceptibility to remediation approaches.
This goal is best achieved by proper characterization of both fuels and release sites, as well as the
development of effective risk management approaches. Research activities will include:
• Fuels analysis, including understanding current and future shifts in supply.
• Understanding fate and transport of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels coming into the
marketplace using models that incorporate defining characteristics of the fuel and the
releases.
• Work with the public and private sectors on analysis of infrastructure to determine
vulnerabilities in the tank storage system to prevent water quality impairment.
• Technology transfer of a patented Biomass Concentrator Reactor for cost-effective
treatment of ground water to remove contamination due to oxygenates, fuels, and fuel
blends. Use of this reactor ensures that treated ground water meets established drinking
water standards.
• Development of treatment options anticipating fuel composition changes and the nature
of sites where releases will occur.
• Determining the role of vapor releases of gasoline from underground storage tanks on
fuel constituent contamination in ground water both in the field and in laboratory settings.
This research will complement biofuels research conducted in the global change and air
programs.
3 Mackay, D. M., N. R. de Sieyes, M. D. Einarson, K. P. Feris, A. A. Pappas, I. A. Wood, L. Jacobson, L. G. Justice, M. N.
Noske, K. M. Scow and J. T. Wilson. Impact of Ethanol on the Natural Attenuation of Benzene, Toluene and o-Xylene in a
Normally Sulfate-Reducing Aquifer. Environmental Science and Technology, 40:19, 6123-6130,2006.
4 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, B.C.: EPA. For more information,
see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-yearplans.htmS land
5 For more information, see www. epa. gov/landscience.
670
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes. Performance measures for LUST research activities are
included under the Superfund Land Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$112.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
BRERA; CERCLA; ERDDA; HSWA; OP A; RCRA; SARA; SWDA.
671
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
672
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,581.6
$12,234.1
$10,887.1
$1,347.0
$25,815.7
124.9
FY2010
Enacted
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,647.0
$12,162.0
$12,162.0
$0.0
$26,809.0
136.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,223.0
$549. 0
$549.0
$0.0
$2,772.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing
petroleum and hazardous substances by enhancing state, local, and Tribal enforcement and
response capability. Under this program, EPA provides oversight and financial assistance for
states, tribes, and non-profit organizations. Activities in support of this mission include
providing technical information, forums for information exchange, and training opportunities to
encourage program development and/or implementation.
Under this program, EPA works with state and Tribal UST programs to clean up LUST sites,
promote innovative and environmentally friendly approaches in corrective action in order to
enhance and streamline the remediation process, and measure and evaluate national program
progress and performance. In addition, the Energy Policy Act6 (EPAct) of 2005 authorized
LUST Trust Fund resources to develop and implement a strategy to implement and enforce
EPAct requirements concerning USTs in Indian country. EPA has primary responsibility for
implementing the LUST program in Indian country, and will use a portion of its LUST funding
for these activities, including providing tribes with financial assistance for cleanups.
In the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the LUST cleanup program
received $200 million in budget authority, of which a total of $1.3 million was obligated under
LUST/UST. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/.
6 Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll
to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
673
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
As of the end of FY 2009, almost 80 percent (or 388,331) of all reported leaks have been
addressed, leaving a remainder of 100,165 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.7 In FY
2011, EPA will continue to work with the states and tribes to complete LUST cleanups in an
effort to reduce the remaining backlog.
In FY 2011, EPA will strive for improved engagement of local communities with stakeholder
input in enhancing state and Tribal public involvement of policies and processes. EPA will
continue to help states and tribes improve LUST cleanup performance by performing analyses,
such as analyzing states' backlog characterization reports and states' financial soundness, and
implementing strategies to reduce the backlog of open releases. EPA will work with states to
better characterize sites still requiring remediation and provide guidance and technical support
regarding cleanup approaches and technologies. EPA also will continue its efforts to monitor the
soundness of financial mechanisms serving as financial assurance for LUST sites, including
insurance and state cleanup funds, a significant source of funding for addressing LUST cleanups.
EPA will explore the opportunities for financial mechanisms to improve cleanup performance.
The EPAct requirement to develop a strategy8 for implementing the program in Indian country
enhanced EPA's efforts and provided renewed focus to reduce the cleanup backlog and to
prevent future releases in Indian country. To address leaking USTs in Indian country and protect
vulnerable populations, EPA will continue to provide support for site assessments, investigations
and remediation; enforcement against responsible parties; cleanup of soil and/or groundwater;
alternate water supplies; and cost recovery against UST owners and operators. EPA also will
continue to provide technical expertise and assistance by utilizing in-house personnel,
contractors and grants/cooperative agreements to Tribal entities; response activities; oversight of
responsible party lead cleanups; and support and assistance to Tribal governments.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of LUST
cleanups completed
that meet risk -based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration
in Indian Country.
FY 2009
Target
30
FY 2009
Actual
49
FY 2010
Target
30
FY2011
Target
30
Units
Cleanups
7 Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2009 - As Of September 30, 2009, dated
December 2009; http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_09_34.pdf.
! Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of'the Energy Policy Act of'2005, August 2006,
EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact Q5.htm#Final.
674
-------
To improve the LUST program, EPA created two long-term performance measures that focus on
environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and groundwater migration. In addition, the measures will increase the
number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration in Indian country.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$638.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$213.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (+$124.0) This increase provides additional resources to grants for technical assistance,
training and administrative support for the LUST program. These resources will be used
to address emerging program issues and cleanup activities such as vapor intrusion
cleanup, state fund soundness, and implementing Green Remediation practices.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(Subtitle I), Section 9003(h); Section 8001(a); Tribal Grants Public Law 105-276; 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.
675
-------
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$255,541.4
$64,864.4
$190,677.0
$255,541.4
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$0.0
$63,192.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
($378.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA provides resources to states and territories through cooperative agreements authorized
under Section 9003 (h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) for the oversight and cleanup of
petroleum releases from underground storage tanks (USTs). The Agency will continue to fund
research, studies, and training that directly support state oversight and Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup. To date, 388,331 reported leaks have been addressed, leaving a
backlog of 100,165 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.9 For additional information,
refer to the following site: http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
States are the primary implementing agencies. States use the cleanup funds provided under this
program to administer their corrective action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties,
undertake necessary enforcement actions, pay for cleanups in cases of an emergency and where a
responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup, and recover
costs from responsible parties who are unwilling to pay for cleanups.10
When the LUST Trust Fund is used, tank owners/operators are liable to the state for costs
incurred and are subject to cost recovery actions. Forty states11 have separate UST cleanup
funds that pay for most LUST cleanups. Collectively, states raise and spend more than $1 billion
annually on LUST cleanups.
In the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the LUST program received
$200 million in budget authority, of which a total of $190 million was obligated under LUST
Cooperative Agreements. Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/. In FY 2011, EPA and states will continue to implement the dual
goals of the ARRA LUST funding: stimulate the economy and assess/remediate LUST sites.
9 Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2009 - As Of September 30, 2009, dated
December 2009; http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_09_34.pdf.
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm
10
11 There are 36 state funds that accept new releases and an additional 7 that have "sunset," meaning that they stopped accepting
claims. Because the span of these "sunset" funds varies, the program has characterized this number as approximately 40 states.
676
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with the states to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to
reduce the remaining backlog. EPA's LUST cleanup program will focus on increasing the
efficiency of LUST cleanups nationwide. EPA and its state partners will continue to make
progress in cleaning up petroleum leaks by initiating and completing cleanups, and reducing the
backlog of sites not yet cleaned up. At the FY 2011 request level, the Agency will provide not
less than 80 percent of LUST appropriated funds to states to carry out specific purposes.12 EPA
will distribute the LUST funding to states under a previously established allocation process for
the cleanup activities.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*NumberofLUST
cleanups completed
that meet risk -based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration.
FY 2009
Target
12,250
FY 2009
Actual
12,944
FY 2010
Target
12,250
FY2011
Target
12,250
Units
Cleanups
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the receipt of ARRA
funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
To improve the LUST program, EPA created a long-term performance measure that focuses on
environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and groundwater migration.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$378.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds realigned in FY 2010. This change in
FY 2011 will not impact performance.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(Subtitle I), Section 9003(h); Section 9004(f); Section 8001(a)(l); Section 9003(h)(7) of the
SWDA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
12 Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct of 2005; SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of
1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9004(f).
677
-------
LUST Prevention
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$33,973.8
$33,973.8
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Preventing petroleum releases into the environment has been one of the primary goals of the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program since its inception. EPA and its state
partners have made major progress in reducing the number of new releases, but thousands of new
leaks are still discovered each year. The lack of proper operation and maintenance of
underground storage tank (UST) systems is a main cause of these new releases. EPA continues
to work with the states, tribes, and other partners to advance prevention efforts and quickly
detect releases when they occur.
In recent years, these efforts have been enhanced by the release prevention requirements
mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The LUST Prevention program will
provide assistance to states to meet their responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of EPAct and
for tribes to implement the LUST Prevention program, as highlighted in EPA's "Strategy For An
EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the Energy Policy Act Of 2005."13 At the
end of FY 2009, there were approximately 612,000 federally-regulated active USTs at
approximately 223,000 sites across the country. The LUST Prevention program will assist states
with inspections and other release prevention and compliance assurance activities for federally-
regulated underground storage tanks, as well as for enforcement activities related to release
prevention. For tribes, the LUST Prevention program will assist with all aspects of the Tribal
programs, e.g., inspection capacity.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The LUST prevention program fosters state and Tribal partnerships to minimize UST releases in
local communities. In FY 2011, EPA will continue to make grants or cooperative agreements to
states and tribes, and/or intertribal consortia for activities authorized by the EPAct.14 Major
activities will include inspections, enforcement of violations discovered during inspections,
development of leak prevention regulations, and other program infrastructure. Specifically, these
major activities include inspecting UST facilities to meet the three-year inspection requirement,
13 See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf.
14 Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_congj3ublic_laws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf (scroll
to Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, on pages 500-513 of the pdf file).
678
-------
assisting states in implementing the various release prevention provisions of EPAct and EPA's
grant guidelines, such as operator training and delivery prohibition and continuing to build Tribal
implementation capacity. These activities are geared toward bringing all UST systems into
compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements and minimizing future
releases.
For tribes, the LUST Prevention program will assist with all aspects of the Tribal programs (e.g.,
developing inspection capacity). To help prevent future releases, EPA will continue to help
tribes develop the capacity to administer UST programs, such as providing funding to support
training for Tribal staff and educating owners and operators in Indian country about UST
requirements.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
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 2009
Target
65
FY 2009
Actual
66.4
FY 2010
Target
65.5
FY2011
Target
66
Units
Percent
Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, section 9011 and other applicable provisions of
Subtitle I, as amended for States and Territories; Tribal Grants (P.L. 105-276); Energy Policy
Act of 2005, Title XV, Subtitle B.
679
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
680
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$138,113.2
$0.0
$2,060.5
$167.2
$140,340.9
949.5
FY2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$0.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$187,755.0
$847.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$191,161.0
1,229.3
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$41,119.0
$847.0
$561.0
$0.0
$42,527.0
240.8
Program Project Description:
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment through targeting enforcement actions according to the degree of health and
environmental risk in order to promote compliance with Federal environmental statutes and
regulations. The program collaborates with the Department of Justice and states, local agencies
and Tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and
regulations. The program seeks to aggressively pursue violations that threaten communities,
level the economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit
from noncompliance, and deter future violations. The civil enforcement program develops,
litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of
environmental laws.
To improve compliance with environmental laws, regulated entities, Federal agencies, and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find efficient,
cost-effective means for putting them into practice. To protect our nation's groundwater and
drinking water from petroleum releases from Underground Storage Tanks (UST), this program
will also provide compliance assistance tools, technical assistance, and training to promote and
enforce UST systems compliance and cleanups.15
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency is shifting the Compliance Assistance and Centers program to the Civil
Enforcement Program as part of the enforcement and compliance assurance program's
realignment effort. EPA will continue to integrate assistance into its enforcement and
compliance assurance efforts. The Agency will continue to obtain state commitments to increase
their inspection and enforcement presence where state-specific UST compliance goals are not
met. The Agency and states will use innovative compliance approaches, along with outreach and
' For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.
681
-------
education tools, to bring more USTs into compliance and to promote UST cleanups. The
Agency also will continue to provide guidance to foster the use of new technology to enhance
compliance.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Civil Enforcement
program project under EPM. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$847.0/ +4.8 FTE) This change in resources, including $814.0 in associated payroll,
reflects the Agency's efforts to realign the enforcement program by consolidating the
Compliance Assistance and Centers program with the Civil Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
PPA: CERFA: NEPA: AEA: UMTRLWA: RCRA.
682
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Oil Spill
Resource Summary Table 684
Program Projects in Oil Spills 684
Program Area: Compliance 686
Compliance Assistance and Centers 687
Compliance Monitoring 688
Program Area: Enforcement 690
Civil Enforcement 691
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 693
IT / Data Management 694
Program Area: Oil 696
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response 697
Program Area: Operations and Administration 700
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 701
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 703
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 704
683
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Oil Spill Response
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill Response
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$17,794.8
94.3
FY2010
Enacted
$18,379.0
102.2
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$18,468.0
102.2
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$89.0
0.0
Bill Language: Oil Spill Response
For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibilities
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, [$18,379,000]$18,468,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended. (Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.)
Program Projects in Oil Spills
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
FY 2009
Actuals
$293.5
$0.0
$293.5
$2,060.5
$36.3
$14,445.6
$538.0
FY2010
Enacted
$269.0
$0.0
$269.0
$1,998.0
$24.0
$14,944.0
$438.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$139.0
$139.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$14,547.0
$438.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
V.
FY2010
Enacted
($269.0)
$139.0
($130.0)
$561.0
($24.0)
($397.0)
$0.0
684
-------
Program Project
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Jubtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Jubtotal, Research: Land Protection and Restoration
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$38.1
$576.1
$576.1
$382.8
$382.8
$17,794.8
FY2010
Enacted
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0
$639.0
$639.0
$18,379.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$96.0
$534.0
$534.0
$689.0
$689.0
$18,468.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
V.
FY2010
Enacted
$29.0
$29.0
$29.0
$50.0
$50.0
$89.0
685
-------
Program Area: Compliance
686
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$802.4
$293.5
$22.0
$26,113.9
179.8
FY 2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:
This portion of the Compliance Assistance program is designed to prevent oil spills using
compliance and civil enforcement tools and strategies and to prepare for and respond to any
oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's Oil Program has a long
history of effective response to major oil spills, and the lessons learned have helped to
improve our country's prevention and response capabilities.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Agency proposes to merge the Compliance Assistance and Centers and
Compliance Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring programs to more fully integrate compliance assistance into enforcement and
assurance efforts. Therefore, the FY 2011 Compliance and Assistance and Centers programs
are incorporated into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs.
Performance Targets:
The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring program projects under EPM, where these
resources have been realigned.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$269.07 -1.8 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the Agency's efforts to realign
the enforcement program by eliminating the Compliance Assistance and Centers
program, and moves the activities and resources to the Civil Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring programs, including associated payroll of $222.0.
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241;
Executive Order 12656.
687
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$98,457.1
$0.0
$1,265.2
$99,722.3
613.6
FY2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2011
Pres Bud
$110,467.0
$139.0
$1,220.0
$111,826.0
632.5
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$11,067.0
$139.0
$4.0
$11,210.0
20.2
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Monitoring program includes a range of activities and tools designed to
improve compliance with environmental laws. Regulated entities, Federal agencies, and the
public benefit from easy access to tools that help them understand these laws and find
efficient, cost-effective means for putting them into practice.
This portion of the Compliance Monitoring program is designed to prevent oil spills using
compliance and civil enforcement tools and strategies and to prepare for and respond to any
oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's Oil Program has a long
history of effective response to major oil spills, and the lessons learned have helped to
improve our country's prevention and response capabilities.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 311 (oil spill and hazardous substances)
requirements, the Agency will continue in FY 2011 to provide compliance assistance to
regulated entities to assist them in understanding their legal requirements under the CWA and
provide them with cost effective compliance strategies to help prevent oil spills. This request
reflects the realignment of the enforcement program through consolidation of the Compliance
Assistance and Compliance Incentives programs with the Civil Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring programs.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal,
addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix B).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Compliance
Monitoring program project. These measures can be found in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
688
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$139.0/ +0.9 FTE) This reflects the realignment of the enforcement program through
consolidation of the Compliance Assistance and Compliance Incentives programs with
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs.
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241;
Executive Order 12656.
689
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
690
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$138,113.2
$0.0
$2,060.5
$167.2
$140,340.9
949.5
FY2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$0.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$187,755.0
$847.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$191,161.0
1,229.3
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$41,119.0
$847.0
$561.0
$0.0
$42,527.0
240.8
Program Project Description:
This portion of the Civil Enforcement program is designed to prevent oil spills using civil
enforcement and compliance assistance approaches as well as to prepare for and respond to
any oil spills affecting the inland waters of the United States. EPA's oil program has a long
history of effective response to oil spills, including several major incidents. The lessons
learned improve our country's prevention and response capabilities. *
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 311 (Oil Spill and Hazardous Substances) requirements,
EPA's Civil Enforcement program will develop policies, issue administrative cleanup orders
and/or refer civil judicial actions to the Department of Justice, assess civil penalties for
violations of those orders or for spills into the environment, provide compliance assistance to
regulated entities to assist them in understanding their legal requirements under the Clean
Water Act, and assist in the recovery of cleanup costs expended by the government. In FY
2011, the program also will continue to provide support for field investigations and
inspections of spills, as well as Spill Control Countermeasure compliance assistance.
Work under this program project supports the Agency's new High Priority Performance Goal,
addressing water quality (specified in full in Appendix B).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program also supports the performance measures in the Civil Enforcement
program project under EPM. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm.
691
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$386.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$175.07 +0.9 FTE) This change in resources, including associated payroll of $135.0,
reflects the Agency's efforts to realign the enforcement program by consolidating the
Compliance Assistance program with the Civil Enforcement program.
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
692
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
693
-------
IT / Data Management
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This
support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices -
the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General
Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$90,809.5
$3,852.1
$164.3
$36.3
$17,266.1
$112,128.3
484.6
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$98,060.0
$4,111.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$118,891.0
489.3
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$650.0
($274.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($367.0)
($177.0)
-13.8
Program Project Description:
The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) program supports the development,
collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and
ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning
at the national, program, and regional levels. IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable
information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data
standardization, integration, and public access. IT/DM manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. And
IT/DM supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and
environmental programs, and telecommunications.
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For
descriptive purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas:
information access; geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information
management (IT/IM) policy and planning; electronic records and content management;
internet operations and maintenance (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/IM
infrastructure. The activity partially funded under the Oil Spill Response (Oil) appropriation
is Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the work previously supported by this appropriation will be continued under
Environmental Program and Management. This is a technical adjustment to simplify
accounting.
694
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$24.0) This change eliminates the use of Oil appropriation and shifts resources to
Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient
accounting of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being
performed.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
695
-------
Program Area: Oil
696
-------
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Program Area: Oil
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill Response
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,445.6
$14,445.6
84.7
FY2010
Enacted
$14,944.0
$14,944.0
84.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$14,547.0
$14,547.0
84.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($397.0)
($397.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Oil Spill program protects U.S. waters by effectively preventing, preparing for,
responding to and monitoring oil spills. EPA conducts oil spill prevention, preparedness, and
enforcement activities associated with more than six hundred thousand non-transportation-
related oil storage facilities that EPA regulates through its spill prevention program. The Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation and the Facility Response Plan
(FRP) regulation establish EPA's Oil Spill program regulatory framework. In addition to its
prevention responsibilities, EPA serves as the lead responder for cleanup of all inland zone
spills, including transportation-related spills from pipelines, trucks, and other transportation
systems. EPA accesses the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast
Guard, to obtain reimbursement for site-specific spill response activities. More than thirty
thousand oil and hazardous substance releases occur in the U.S. every year, with a large
number of these spills occurring in the inland zone for which EPA has jurisdiction. On
average, one spill of greater than 100 thousand gallons occurs every month from EPA-
regulated oil storage facilities and the inland oil transportation network. For more
information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
FY 2011 priorities will continue to focus on improvements to the Oil Spill program's
regulatory requirements. As appropriate, EPA will begin to implement regulatory changes and
update guidance, which was issued previously, to ensure it reflects current final rule
requirements and input from stakeholders.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to review/approve FRPs and conduct inspections and
exercises. The largest oil storage facilities and refineries must prepare FRPs to identify
response resources and ensure their availability in the event of a worst case discharge. FRPs
establish communication, address security, identify an individual with authority to implement
response actions, and describe training and testing drills at the facility. EPA also will finalize
and begin using guidance for FRP inspectors.
697
-------
Working with state, local, Tribal, and Federal officials in a given geographic location, EPA
will continue to strengthen Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) and Regional Contingency Plans
and to enhance preparedness exercises. The ACPs detail the responsibilities of various parties
in the event of a spill/release, describe unique geographical features, sensitive ecological
resources, and drinking water intakes for the area covered, and identify available response
equipment and its location. EPA conducts a small number of ACP exercises each year to
evaluate and strengthen the plans.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of all
SPCC inspected
facilities found to
be non-compliant
which are brought
into compliance.
FY
2009
Target
FY
2009
Actual
FY
2010
Target
15
FY
2011
Target
30
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of all FRP
inspected facilities
found to be non-
compliant which
are brought into
compliance.
FY
2009
Target
FY
2009
Actual
FY
2010
Target
15
FY
2011
Target
30
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Gallons of oil
spilled to
navigable
waters per
million
program dollar
spent annually
on prevention
and
preparedness at
Facilty
Response Plan
(FRP)
facilities.
FY 2009
Target
No
Target
Establish
ed
FY
2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2/201
0
FY 2010
Target
No
Target
Establish
ed
FY
2011
Target
81,000
Units
Gallons
EPA's Oil Spill program performance is determined by measuring the compliance rate of
facilities with the FRP and SPCC requirements. The program also is developing stronger
698
-------
strategic planning procedures to ensure continuous program improvement, ensuring data
quality, and developing a forum to share best spill prevention practices across Regional
offices. The efficiency measure reflects long-term performance with targets set every three
years.
In FY 2011, EPA will ensure that 30 percent of FRP facilities that are found to be non-
compliant during FY 2010 and FY 2011 will be brought into compliance by the end of the
fiscal year. EPA will emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through the use of
unannounced drills and exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively
implement response plans. An SPCC measure was also instituted for FY 2010. Similar to the
FRP measure mentioned above, EPA will ensure that 30 percent of SPCC facilities found to
be non-compliant during FY 2010 and FY 2011 will be brought into compliance by the end of
the fiscal year.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$772.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$56.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
• (-$1,113.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds received in FY 2010 to implement
requirements under the new SPCC regulation.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the OPA of 1990. The regulatory
framework includes the Oil and Hazardous Substances NCP (40 CFR Part 300) and the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 112) which covers the SPCC and FRP program
requirements.
699
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
700
-------
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Goal: Provide Agency-wide support for multiple goals to achieve their objectives. This
support involves Agency-wide activities primarily provided by EPA's six (6) support offices -
the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General
Counsel (OGC), Office of the Administrator (OA), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$302,944.6
$73,519.6
$29,282.8
$895.5
$576.1
$74,210.7
$481,429.3
390.2
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2011
Pres Bud
$329,831.0
$70,495.0
$31,931.0
$916.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$510,344.0
415.1
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
$14,593.0
($2,423.0)
$3,000.0
$12.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$13,366.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program provides a wide range of activities and
support services in many centralized administrative areas such as health and safety,
environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety,
and environmental management functions at EPA. Oil Spill Response appropriation
resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities management services
including facilities maintenance and operations, Headquarters security, space planning,
shipping and receiving, property management, printing and reproduction, mail management,
and transportation services.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
• For FY 2011, the Agency is requesting a total of $0.44 million for rent and $0.096
million for transit subsidy in the Oil Spill Response appropriation.
• The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying
that monthly billing statements are correct.
• EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by
Executive Order 13150 Federal Workforce Transportation.
701
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$29.0) This change reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual
Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and
12598; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of
Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure
Protection).
702
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
703
-------
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,696.8
$424.1
$382.8
$19,010.1
$31,513.8
141.4
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36,286.0
154.7
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,800.0
$457.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$34,015.0
150.7
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY2010
Enacted
($311.0)
$112.0
$50.0
($2,122.0)
($2,271.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:
The range of research programs and initiatives will both continue the work of better
understanding the scientific basis of our environmental and human health problems as well as
advance the design of sustainable solutions through approaches such as green chemistry and
green engineering. In the Oil Spill Research program, work focuses on three aspects:
• Protocol development for testing commercial product effectiveness;
• Understanding fate and transport of oil in the environment (such as the work done on
bioremediation on shorelines and wetlands and dispersant research in a wave tank); and
• Spill response technology development.
EPA's Land Research program provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to
protect and sustain America's land. EPA develops and uses its protocols for testing various
spill response product classes to pre-qualify products as outlined by the preparedness and
response requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Testing products ensures that they
work as claimed and provides access to effective means to reduce damage when an oil spill
occurs.
Spill response is a priority for the Agency, and EPA has been instrumental in providing
guidance for various response technologies, such as the published bioremediation guidance
documents2. A key factor in providing guidance on spill response technologies is developing
a firm understanding of the science behind spill behavior in the environment. One example of
why this understanding is required is to determine the cause of lingering oil in Prince William
Sound twenty years after the Exxon Valdez spill. Fundamental science is essential to the
development of effective regulations, and the Agency's oil spill research program has been
invaluable in providing this guidance, as well as support for implementation, through
activities such as annual On-Scene Coordinator training on alternative response technologies.
2 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/publications.htm.
704
-------
These research efforts are guided by the Land Research program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP)3,
developed with input from across the Agency. The MYP outlines steps for meeting the needs
of Agency programs and for evaluating progress through annual performance goals and
measures. To enhance communication with customers, EPA developed a Land Research
program Web site.4 The Web site includes a description of the program, fact sheets (science
issues, program research, and impacts), research publications and accomplishments, and links
to tools and models.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the Land Research program will continue remediation research into advances
associated with physical, chemical, and biological risk management methods for petroleum
and non-petroleum oil and biofuel spills in freshwater and marine environments, as well as
development of a protocol for testing oil solidifiers. This represents an additional spill cleanup
technology with protocols developed by the Land Research program. Prior technologies
include bioremediation agents, dispersants, and surface washing agents. The program also
will develop testing guidelines that address environment, type of oil (petroleum oil, vegetable
oil, animal fat, or biofuel), and agents for remediation. The program will continue to model
the composition and properties of spilled oil, natural dispersion, emulsification, weathering,
and effectiveness of control strategies. Research products are presented at meetings and
posted or linked on EPA's oil spill Web site for use by oil spill managers.5
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes. Performance measures for research activities in this
program are included under the Superfund Land Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$50.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
3 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, DC: EPA. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/multi-vearplans.htmtfland.
4 For more information, see www. epa. gov/landscience.
' For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/.
705
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table 707
Program Projects in STAG 709
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) 712
Brownfields Projects 713
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program 719
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages 721
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF 723
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF 727
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border 731
Targeted Airshed Grants 734
Program Area: Categorical Grants 736
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection 737
Categorical Grant: Brownfields 739
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information 741
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance 743
Categorical Grant: Lead 745
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change 747
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation 748
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) 750
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement 753
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation 754
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) 758
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention 763
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 765
Categorical Grant: Radon 768
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management 770
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance 774
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management 775
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program 776
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) 779
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks 783
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development 785
706
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Dollars
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,996,640.1
$6,320,935.3
$9,317,575.4
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$4,978,223.0
$4,978,223.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$4,781,873.0
$4,781,873.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($196,350.0)
($196,350.0)
0.0
Bill Language: State and Tribal Assistance Grants
For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants for
State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, [$4,970,223,000] $4,781,873,000, to
remain available until expended, of which [$2,100,000,000]$2,000,000,000 shall be for making
capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (the "Act"); of which [$],387,000,000]$ J,287,000,000
shall be for making capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under
section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended: Provided, That for fiscal year
[2010J2011, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20
percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not less than 20 percent of the funds made available
under this title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall
be used by the State for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency
improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities; [$17,000,000]$ 10,000,000 shall
be for architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of
the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate border commission;
[$13,000,000]$10,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided further, That,
of these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 25 percent; and (2) no more than
5 percent of the funds may be used for administrative and overhead expenses; [and (3) the State
of Alaska shall make awards consistent with the State-wide priority list established in
conjunction with the Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for all water, sewer, waste
disposal, and similar projects carried out by the State of Alaska that are funded under section
221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) which shall allocate not less than 25 percent of
the funds provided for projects in regional hub communities; $156,777,000 shall be for making
special project grants and technical corrections to prior-year grants for the construction of
drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water quality protection in
accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such grants in the joint explanatory
707
-------
statement of the managers accompanying this Act, and, for purposes of these grants, each
grantee shall contribute not less than 45 percent of the cost of the project unless the grantee is
approved for a waiver by the Agency; $100,000,000]$ 138,254,000 shall be to carry out section
104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, including grants, inter agency agreements, and associated program
support costs; $60,000,000 shall be for grants under title VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, as amended; [$20,000,000 shall be for targeted airshed grants in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the joint explanatory statement of the managers accompanying this Act;]
and [$1,116,446,000]$ 1,2 76,619,000 shall be for grants, including associated program support
costs, to States, federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air
pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and
abatement and related activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions set forth under
this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air
Act for particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities subject to terms and
conditions specified by the Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for carrying out section
128 of CERCLA, as amended, [$10,000,000] $10,200,000 shall be for Environmental
Information Exchange Network grants, including associated program support costs,
[$18,500,000]$23,500,000 of the funds available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be
for [water quality monitoring activities, $10,000,000 shall be for competitive grants to
communities to develop plans and demonstrate and implement projects which reduce greenhouse
gas emissions] state participation in national- and state-level statistical surveys of water
resources and enhancements to state monitoring programs and, in addition to funds
appropriated under the heading "Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program" to
carry out the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in section 9508(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code other than section 9003 (h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
[$2,500,000]$2,550,000 shall be for grants to States under section 2007 (f)(2) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution
control revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to
amounts included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal year [2010]2011 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 [2010]2011, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act,
the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section
319 of that Act to make grants to federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant to sections 319(h)
and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year [2010]2011, notwithstanding the
limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section
1452(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to a total of 2 percent of the funds appropriated for
State Revolving Funds under such Acts may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under
section 518(c) and section 1452(i) of such Acts: Provided further, That for fiscal year [2010, in
addition to] 2011, notwithstanding the amounts specified in section 205(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, up to [1.2486] 1.5 percent of the aggregate funds appropriated for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund program under the Act less any sums reserved under section
518(c) of the Act, may be reserved by the Administrator for grants made under title II of the
Clean Water Act for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and
708
-------
United States Virgin Islands: Provided further, That for fiscal year [2010]2011, 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] more than 30 percent
of the funds made available under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grants [and not less 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 enactment of this Act, except that for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grant appropriation this section shall only apply to the portion that exceeds
$1,000,000,000: Provided further, That no funds provided by this appropriations Act to address
the water, wastewater and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States
along the United States-Mexico border shall be made available to a county or municipal
government unless that government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or other
zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction of any additional
colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia the construction of any new home,
business, or other structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure:
Provided further, That, of the funds otherwise available under this heading, $30,000,000 is
provided for grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes for implementation of environmental
programs and projects as defined by the Administrator, including associated program support
costs and inter agency agreements: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2011 and hereafter, of
the funds provided for the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund
Tribal Set-Asides, the Administrator may transfer funds between those accounts in the same
manner as provided to States under section 302(s) of Public Law 104-182, as amended by Public
Law 109-54. (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010.)
Program Projects in STAG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
FY 2009
Actuals
$706,139.0
$865,448.7
$124,409.3
$18,438.4
$101,918.0
$45.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$164,777.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,000,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$138,254.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($164,777.0)
($3,000.0)
$38,254.0
$0.0
709
-------
Program Project
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
(other activities)
Subtotal, Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
Targeted Airshed Grants
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media Tribal
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$15,000.0
$29,367.3
$44,367.3
$0.0
$12,911.8
$3,849.0
$1,877,526.8
$0.0
$9,905.2
$50,586.9
$12,628.5
$102,332.3
$5,916.9
$14,295.1
$0.0
$214,498.2
$19,208.7
$12,772.0
$12,975.8
$203,860.5
$216,836.3
$4,932.3
$99,440.1
$8,370.4
$2,717.7
$223,541.5
$8,946.4
FY 2010
Enacted
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$0.0
$3,861,777.0
$0.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0
$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$3,505,254.0
$30,000.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$105,412.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$19,085.0
$13,690.0
$23,500.0
$250,764.0
$274,264.0
$5,039.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$309,080.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($20,000.0)
($7,000.0)
$0.0
($356,523.0)
$30,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
$291.0
($10,000.0)
$0.0
$374.0
$170.0
$5,000.0
$40,000.0
$45,000.0
$99.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$82,500.0
$0.0
710
-------
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
Recovery Act Resources
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,276.9
$13,962.5
$61,681.1
$11,332.4
$4,549.5
$23.3
$14.0
$15,345.1
$15,345.1
$1,119,113.3
$6,320,935.3
$9,317,575.4
FY 2010
Enacted
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0
$4,978,223.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$2,550.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,167.0
$17,167.0
$1,276,619.0
$4,781,873.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
$102.0
$266.0
$8,500.0
$218.0
$50.0
$0.0
$0.0
$337.0
$337.0
$160,173.0
($196,350.0)
711
-------
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
712
-------
Brownfields Projects
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$187,453.6
$101,918.0
$85,535.6
$106.7
$187,560.3
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$100,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$100,000.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$138,254.0
$138,254.0
$0.0
$0.0
$138,254.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$38,254.0
$38,254.0
$0.0
$0.0
$38,254.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with contaminated
properties and abandoned sites known as brownfields.* The Agency's Brownfields program
coordinates a Federal, state, Tribal, and local government approach to assist in addressing
environmental site assessment and cleanup through grants and cooperative agreements
authorized by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 104(k) and related authorities. Under CERCLA 104(k)(12)(B), the
Brownfields program must allocate 25 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out CERCLA
104(k) to address sites contaminated by petroleum.
Under this program, EPA will provide: 1) assessment cooperative agreements for recipients to
inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning related to
Brownfields sites; 2) targeted Brownfields assessments performed under EPA contracts and
interagency agreements with Federal partners; 3) cleanup cooperative agreements for recipients
to clean up sites they own; 4) capitalization cooperative agreements for Revolving Loan Funds
(RLFs) to provide low interest loans for cleanups; 5) job training cooperative agreements; and 6)
financial assistance to localities, states, tribes, and non-profit organizations for research, training,
and technical assistance for Brownfields-related activities. In addition, EPA will offer technical
assistance, research, and training services to individuals and organizations from EPA contractors
and Federal partners under interagency agreements to facilitate the inventory, assessment, and
remediation of Brownfields sites, community involvement, and site preparation.
EPA has been at the forefront of coordinating with other Federal agencies. In cooperation with
its Federal partners, EPA developed the Brownfields Federal Partnership Action Agenda. The
Action Agenda describes the commitment of more than 20 Federal agencies to help communities
more effectively prevent, assess, safely clean up, and reuse Brownfields.2
1 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.html.
2
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/docs/swerosps/bf/partners/federal partnerships.htm.
713
-------
The Brownfields Projects program also received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/
and http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Brownfields program fosters Federal, state, local, and public-private partnerships to return
properties to productive economic use in communities. As part of the Agency's Healthy
Communities initiative, this FY 2011 request includes an additional $38.3 million to provide: (1)
targeted assessment funding focused on disadvantaged and economically distressed
communities, (2) technical assistance to those communities, and (3) supplemental funding for
existing high performing RLF recipients. The additional funding for RLF recipients would be
structured to give priority to those that have "shovel ready" projects in or around distressed and
disadvantaged areas. Additionally, funds will be used to focus on community involvement and
area-wide planning associated with the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields sites, including
sites with petroleum contaminants.
This request reflects an emphasis on environmental health and protection that also achieves
economic development and job creation through the redevelopment of Brownfields properties,
particularly in underserved and disadvantaged communities. This will be achieved through a
new approach of area-wide planning that would identify viable end uses of Brownfields
properties and associated infrastructure investments and environmental improvements in the
surrounding area to foster the redevelopment of the Brownfields properties and revitalize the
community. The area-wide planning will be conducted with the participation of other Federal
agencies, states, tribes and local governments to identify resources and approvals necessary to
implement actions identified in the area-wide plan.
Through area-wide planning, communities may take a more holistic view of redevelopment,
identifying how multiple (as opposed to targeted individual) Brownfields properties can be
redeveloped to meet their needs for jobs, housing, recreation, and health facilities that would
make a more viable and sustainable community, as well as identifying opportunities to leverage
additional public and private investment. In addition, redeveloping these once productive
properties, rather than redeveloping greenfield properties, limits urban sprawl and, consequently,
reduces the environmental impact associated with sprawl, including reduces greenhouse gas
emissions.
In FY 2011, total funding of $138.3 million, which includes an increase of $38.3 million, will
result in the assessment of one thousand Brownfields properties, the cleanup of sixty
Brownfields properties, and increasing the number of acres ready for reuse by one thousand.
Brownfields grantees will leverage 5,000 cleanup and redevelopment jobs and $900 million in
cleanup and redevelopment funding. Potential increased in targets beginning in 2012 are
described below. Activities include:
• Funding and in-kind technical assistance for an estimated 118 assessment cooperative
agreements (estimated $29.3 million) that recipients may use to inventory, assess,
714
-------
cleanup, and plan to redevelop Brownfields sites, as authorized under CERCLA
104(k)(2). In FY 2011, EPA expects to award fewer assessment cooperative agreements
due to the new Assessment Coalition option which allows three or more eligible entities
to submit one grant proposal for up to $1,000,000 to assess sites and target more areas.
This option became available in FY 2009. EPA will provide funding for Targeted
Brownfields Assessments to be performed through contracts and interagency agreements,
as authorized by CERCLA 104(k)(2) and the terms of EPA's appropriation act. This
includes $7.5 million of the $38.3 million requested to perform Targeted Brownfields
Assessments for 35 communities.
• The Agency will award approximately seven RLF cooperative agreements (estimated
$7.0 million) of up to $1 million each per eligible entity and provide supplemental
funding (estimated $26.7 million) to existing RLF recipients. The RLF program enables
eligible entities to make loans and subgrants for the cleanup of properties and encourage
communities to leverage other funds into their RLF pools and cleanup cooperative
agreements as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3) and (4). This includes $18.7 million
of the $38.3 million requested to supplementally fund approximately 30 existing high
performing RLF recipients, giving greater priority to those that have "shovel ready"
projects in or around "cities in transition."
• Funding will support at least 110 direct cleanup cooperative agreements to enable eligible
entities to cleanup properties (estimated $22.0 million) that the recipient of the funding
owns. EPA plans to increase funding to support more cleanup cooperative agreements in
FY 2011 and to facilitate an increase in the cleanup and redevelopment of Brownfields
sites. The Agency will award direct cleanup cooperative agreements of up to $200,000
per site to eligible entities and non-profits, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3).
• Assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) and other
petroleum contamination found on Brownfields properties (estimated $34.6 million) in
approximately 65 Brownfields communities, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2) and
CERCLA 104(k)(3). This includes $9.6 million of the $38.3 million increase requested
for FY 2011 to address approximately 17 Brownfields communities with petroleum
contaminants.
• Brownfields job training and development cooperative agreements (estimated $2.6
million) of up to $200,000 each for a two year period. This funding will provide for at
least 13 new job training cooperative agreements for community residents to take
advantage of new jobs leveraged by the assessment and cleanup of Brownfields, as
authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6) as well as other "green jobs" opportunities.
• Training, research, and technical assistance grants and cooperative agreements (estimated
$16.1 million) and direct services from contractors and under interagency agreements, as
authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6) and EPA's appropriation act. This includes $2.5
million of the $38.3 million requested in FY 2011. The $2.5 million will focus on
community involvement and planning associated with the assessment and cleanup of
Brownfields sites for approximately 25 communities.
715
-------
Brownfields projects will be featured as one of EPA's High Priority Performance Goals. By
2012, EPA will have initiated 20 Brownfields community-level projects as part of an enhanced
effort to benefit underserved and economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow
those communities to assess and address multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries,
thereby advancing area-wide planning and cleanups and enabling redevelopment of Brownfields
properties on a broader scale than on individual sites. EPA will provide technical assistance,
coordinate its enforcement, water and air quality programs, and work with other Federal
agencies, states, tribes and local governments to implement associated targeted environmental
improvements identified in each community's area-wide plan. This priority goal reflects
emphasis on both environmental health and protection and economic development and job
creation through the redevelopment of Brownfields properties, particularly in underserved and
disadvantaged communities. This goal will also be addressed by the new area-wide planning
approach described above.
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year effort in 2010 to explore better uses of assessment and cleanup
authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into
productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to bear the relevant
tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Superfund Emergency
Response and Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, and Brownfields Projects), EPA will
better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites.
One example of leveraging that EPA may explore is the use of Superfund Emergency Response and
Removal resources to assist in Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, when appropriate.
In addition to furthering the Agency's primary goal of protecting human health and the
environment, this approach will provide economic revitalization and job creation. This approach,
and the additional resources requested, will, beginning in FY 2012, result in an increase in the
numbers of Brownfields sites cleaned, acres made ready for reuse, and jobs leveraged.
The Brownfields project resources contribute to the overall Brownfields program goals and
measures.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Brownfield properties
assessed.
FY 2009
Target
1,000
FY 2009
Actual
1,295
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY2011
Target
1,000
Units
Properties
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Jobs leveraged from
Brownfields activities.
FY 2009
Target
5,000
FY 2009
Actual
6,490
FY 2010
Target
5,000
FY2011
Target
5,000
Units
Jobs
Measure
Type
Measure
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
716
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
* Billions of dollars of
cleanup and
redevelopment funds
leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2009
Target
0.9
FY 2009
Actual
1.06
FY 2010
Target
0.9
FY2011
Target
0.9
Units
Billion
Dollars
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Number of properties
cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
FY 2009
Target
60
FY 2009
Actual
93
FY 2010
Target
60
FY2011
Target
60
Units
Properties
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Acres of Brownfields
properties made ready
for reuse.
FY 2009
Target
1,000
FY 2009
Actual
2,660
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY2011
Target
1,000
Units
Acres
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
The results of the additional $38 million of funding requested are not reflected in the
performance targets below. The Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) performance
targets for the Brownfields program are mainly based on outputs and outcomes of assessment,
cleanup and RLF cooperative agreements. These outputs and outcomes depend on the maturity
of each cooperative agreement which usually have a performance period range of three to five
years. FY 2011 funding will be awarded to grantees near the end of the fiscal year, and work
activity and performance results will begin in FY 2012 and beyond. For assessment and cleanup
cooperative agreements, the performance period is three years, and five years for RLF
cooperative agreements.
By FY 2012, EPA anticipates that the requested FY 2011 funds will yield an increase of 10 more
properties being cleaned up, 300 acres being made ready for reuse, and an increase in the number
of jobs leveraged. Once the cooperative agreements are awarded, the Agency will further refine
targets as more data becomes available.
Moreover, these GPRA targets do not reflect the anticipated results from the ARRA funding
received in FY 2009. Targets for ARRA funds were established and are being reported
separately from the results achieved through the regular appropriation.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$38,254.0) This increase in resources will provide funding for disadvantaged and
underserved communities. Under the Healthy Communities initiative, EPA plans to
perform Targeted Brownfields Assessments for 35 communities, and focus on
717
-------
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118) and the terms of EPA's appropriation acts.
718
-------
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$338,363.4
$44,367.3
$15,000.0
$293,996.1
$338,363.4
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
These grant funds support the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program authorized in
sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DERA provides immediate emission
reductions from existing diesel engines through engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements;
switching to cleaner fuels; idling reduction strategies; and other clean diesel strategies. These
strategies can reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions up to 95 percent, smog-forming
emissions, such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, up to 90 percent, and greenhouse gases up
to 20 percent. The program covers existing diesel engines used in both highway and nonroad
vehicles and equipment. The diesel engines covered are not subject to new, more stringent
emissions standards implemented in 2007 and 2008, which apply to new engines. These older
engines often remain in service for 20 or more years. The program targets fleets in five sectors:
freight, construction, school buses, agriculture, and ports.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to issue and manage various categories of Diesel Emission
Reduction grants and loans outlined below:
• 70 percent of the total funding available will be used to establish competitive National Clean
Diesel Campaign (NCDC) grants to directly fund and/or finance retrofits, rebuilds, and
replacements as well as fuel switching and fuel efficiency measures associated with diesel
trucks, ships, school buses, and other diesel equipment.
o Up to 10 percent of those funds will be used to establish grants to advance
emerging diesel emission reduction technologies, with a focus on new
technologies applicable to ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, and goods
movement.
719
-------
o Out of the competitive funds, the Agency will use competitive grants to help
qualifying entities (states, local governments, ports, etc.) create innovative finance
programs (e.g., revolving loan programs) that provide low cost, flexible loans or
other mechanisms for the purchase of new and cleaner used equipment, as
recommended by the Agency's Environmental Finance Advisory Board (EFAB).
• 30 percent of the total funding available will be used in formula grants to states to implement
state diesel emission reduction programs defined under DERA. State governors have the
discretion to use these funds as direct grants or revolving loans as they see fit.
EPA also will continue to provide diesel emission reduction technology verification as well as
quantification and evaluation of emissions reduction strategies and their cost effectiveness.
DERA Program Results and Continued Demand:
In FY 2008 NCDC reduced the emissions of approximately 14,000 diesel vehicles. Based on
EPA's experience to-date, every one million dollars of DERA program grants/loans will leverage
at least $2 million in additional funding assistance. These projects will eliminate tens of
thousands of tons of pollution from the air we breathe. These reductions will result in up to $1.4
billion in health benefits. According to a 2007 assessment, for every dollar that the nation
invests in clean diesel projects, the program produces up to 13 dollars of health benefits.
The NCDC's multifaceted approach also promotes new and innovative technologies and
approaches to reducing diesel emissions. EPA will continue to offer grants through the
Emerging Technologies program to foster the deployment of verifiable diesel emission reduction
technology, and will quantify and evaluate emissions reduction strategies and their cost-
effectiveness. The program analyzes emission reductions of NOx, PM, HC, CO, and CO2-
equivalents to assess the effectiveness of the money spent and conveys this information to
Congress in a report to highlight the program's accomplishments.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. EPA assesses program
performance by tracking the number of projects completed and the resulting emission reductions.
A list of performance measures for the Diesel Emissions Reductions grants, funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is available at www.epa.gov/recovery/plans under
the Clean Diesel Plan.
Work under this program also supports performance results in the Federal Support for Air
Quality Management Program Project in Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sections 741 and 791-797.
720
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$18,438.4
$18,438.4
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,000.0
$13,000.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($3,000.0)
($3,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Alaska Rural and Native Village (ANV) program addresses the lack of basic drinking water
and sanitation infrastructure (i.e., flushing toilets and running water) in vulnerable rural and
Native Alaska communities. In many of these at-risk communities, honeybuckets and pit privies
are the sole means of sewage collection and disposal. EPA's grant to the State of Alaska
provides funding to improve or construct drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities for
these communities and thereby improve local health and sanitation conditions. The State of
Alaska is best positioned to deliver services as it coordinates with the Federal agencies and with
the communities themselves. This program also supports training, technical assistance, and
educational programs related to the financial management and operation and maintenance of
sanitation systems. See http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/anvrs.htm for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The ANV program is administered by the State of Alaska and provides infrastructure funding to
ANVs and rural Alaska communities that lack access to basic sanitation. The FY 2011 request
of $10 million will fund a portion of the need in rural Alaska homes and will be used to maintain
the existing level of wastewater and drinking water services that meets public health standards
given increased regulatory requirements on drinking water systems and the construction of new
homes in rural Alaska. In FY 2011, the Agency will continue to work with the State of Alaska to
address sanitation conditions and determine how to maximize the value of the Federal
investment in rural Alaska. EPA will continue to implement the ANV "Management Controls
Policy" (adopted in June 2007) to assure that funds are used efficiently by allocating them to
projects that are ready to proceed or progressing satisfactorily.
The Agency has made great strides in implementing more focused and intensive oversight of the
Alaska Native Village grant program through cost analyses, post-award monitoring and project
close-out. EPA has also collaborated with the State of Alaska to establish program goals and
objectives which are now incorporated directly into the state priority system for selecting
candidate projects.
721
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent of project
federal funds expended
on time within the
ancitipated project
construction schedule
set forth in the
Management Control
Policy.
FY 2009
Target
94
FY 2009
Actual
90.5
FY 2010
Target
94.5
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Projects
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of serviceable
rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking
water supply and
wastewater disposal.
FY 2009
Target
96
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
5/2010
FY 2010
Target
98
FY2011
Target
96
Units
Percent
Homes
Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Water Quality objective.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,000.0) This reduces a Congressionally directed increase in funding in FY 2010 that
was not carried forward in FY 2011. The FY 2011 investment leverages funding for
wastewater service and drinking water that meets public health standards. The
President's request continues the FY 2010 increase of Tribal set-asides for both the Clean
Water and Drinking Water SRF from 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent. The continuation of this
change and the continued historic request level for the SRFs boosts the nation's SRF
investment in Tribal water infrastructure.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A Amendments of 1996.
722
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,678,075.6
$706,139.0
$3,971,936.6
$4,678,075.6
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$0.0
$2,100,000.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,000,000.0
$2,000,000.0
$0.0
$2,000,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
$0.0
($100,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program provides funds to capitalize state
revolving loan funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater systems and
projects to improve water quality. The CWSRF is the largest source of Federal funds for states
to provide loans and other forms of assistance for construction of wastewater treatment facilities,
implementation of nonpoint source management plans, and development and implementation of
estuary conservation and management plans. This program also includes a provision for set-
aside funding for tribes to better address serious water infrastructure problems and associated
health impacts. This Federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of
funds to address water quality needs. See http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf for more
information.
State CWSRFs provide low interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and
other water quality projects. These projects are critical to the continuation of the public health
and water quality gains of the past 30 years. EPA estimates that for every Federal dollar
contributed, more than two dollars are provided to municipalities. As of early FY 2010, the
Federal government had invested over $33 billion in the state CWSRFs. The revolving nature of
the funds and substantial additions from states has multiplied that investment to make over $77
billion available for clean water projects since the program's inception.3 The CWSRF program
measures and tracks the average national rate at which available funds are loaned, assuring that
the fund expeditiously supports EPA's water quality goals.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Recognizing the substantial remaining need for additional wastewater infrastructure as well as
the historical effectiveness and efficiency of the CWSRF program, the FY 2011 budget requests
$2.0 billion for the CWSRF. Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($689 million),
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4 billion), and the enacted FY
3 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, 2009).
723
-------
2010 appropriation ($2.1 billion), nearly $8.8 billion will be invested through Federal
capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of three years.
The Federal contribution to water and waste water infrastructure has been substantially
incorporated into the SRFs. These Funds, combined, now produce approximately $5 billion in
repayments each year. As the Funds have grown, the need for Federal capitalization will decline
over the next decade. Some ongoing contribution will be maintained to ensure that the neediest
communities are adequately served. For FY 2011, EPA proposes a new approach to helping
small drinking water systems, as well as reforms to improve the long-term financial, managerial,
and environmental sustainability of the SRFs. As part of that strategy, we are working to ensure
that federal dollars provided through the SRFs act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide
planning, improvements in technical, financial and managerial capacity, and the design,
construction and on-going management of sustainable water infrastructure.
This Federal investment, along with other traditional sources of financing, will enable substantial
progress for the nation's clean water needs and sustainable infrastructure priorities, and will
significantly contribute to the long-term environmental goal of attaining designated uses. To
achieve these significant outcomes, EPA continues to work with states to meet several key
objectives, such as:
• Funding projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach;
• Linking projects to environmental results; and
• Maintaining the excellent fiduciary condition of CWSRF.
For FY 2011, EPA proposes a new approach to helping small drinking water systems, as well as
reforms to improve the long-term financial, managerial, and environmental sustainability of the
SRFs. As part of that strategy, we are working to ensure that Federal dollars provided through
the State Revolving Funds act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in
technical, financial and managerial capacity, and the design, construction and on-going
management of sustainable water infrastructure.
In FY 2011, and consistent with the FY 2010 President's Budget, the Agency is requesting a
Tribal set-aside of up to 2 percent, and a territories set-aside of up to 1.5 percent of the funds
appropriated from the CWSRF. These resources for the tribes and territories will provide much
needed assistance to these communities and help meet long-term performance goals and address
significant public health concerns. The 2002 Johannesburg World Summit adopted the goal of
reducing the number of people lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50
percent by 2015. EPA will support this goal through the CWSRF Indian Set-Aside, which will
provide for the development of sanitation facilities for tribes.
In FY 2011, the President's Budget requests not more than 30 percent of the CWSRF funds
made available to each state be used to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the
form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these).
The additional subsidization would be limited to new projects or those that were initially
financed on or after October 1, 2010. The additional subsidization may assist communities who
could not otherwise afford needed clean water projects.
724
-------
In FY 2011, and consistent with the FY 2010 Enacted Budget, the Agency, to the extent there are
sufficient eligible project applications, will assure that not less than 20 percent of the portion of a
capitalization grant made available shall be for projects, or portions of projects, that include
green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally
innovative activities. The resulting projects will enhance community and utility sustainability.
Assessments have called for improved performance measures that capture the broad range of
public health and environmental benefits provided by the program. In response, EPA,
collaborating with state partners, developed better performance measures, as well as an upgraded
CWSRF benefits reporting system designed to track public health and environmental goals
progress under both the base program and projects funded under ARRA. The benefits reporting
system allows the program to more effectively link CWSRF financing to the protection and
restoration of our nation's waters.
In FY 2011 EPA is requesting transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside
Grant and Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside programs to allow tribes the
flexibility to direct drinking water and wastewater funds to the highest priority projects. This
would provide the same authority to tribes that is currently available to states.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Fund utilization rate
for the CWSRF.
FY 2009
Target
94.5
FY 2009
Actual
98
FY 2010
Target
92
FY2011
Target
94
Units
Percent Rate
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
2,270
FY 2009
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809
FY2011
Target
2,910
Units
Segments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Percent of all major
publicly-owned
treatment works
(POTWs) that comply
with their permitted
wastewater discharge
standards
FY 2009
Target
86
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
5/2010
FY 2010
Target
86
FY2011
Target
86
Units
Percent
POTWs
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
725
-------
Since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively stable and strong at over 90 percent. This
national ratio is an aggregate of fund activity in the 51 individual CWSRF programs (50 states
and Puerto Rico). Small year-to-year fluctuations in the value of the national ratio are expected
and reflect annual funding decisions made by each state based on its assessment and subsequent
prioritization of state water quality needs and the availability of financial resources. The Agency
expects the loan commitment rate to continue to be strong.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$100,000.0) This change reflects a decrease for clean water infrastructure projects.
However, the FY 2011 request level represents a substantial increase over requested and
enacted levels prior to FY 2010. Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($689
million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4 billion), and
the enacted FY 2010 appropriation ($2.1 billion), nearly $8.8 billion will be invested
through Federal capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of three
years.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
726
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,834,915.7
$865,448.7
$1,969,467.0
$2,834,915.7
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$0.0
$1,387,000.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$1,287,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$0.0
$1,287,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
$0.0
($100,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) is designed to support states in helping
public water systems finance the costs of infrastructure improvements needed to achieve or
maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements and to protect public
health. To reduce occurrences of serious public health threats and to ensure safe drinking water
nationwide, EPA is authorized to make capitalization grants to states, so that they can provide
low-cost loans and other assistance to eligible public water systems. The program emphasizes
that states should provide funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that
encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The DWSRF is a key
component of the EPA's sustainable infrastructure initiative. In addition, the Agency has
included legislative language to address green infrastructure. To the extent there are sufficient
eligible project applications, at least 20 percent of the portion of a capitalization grant made
available for DWSRF projects shall be for projects, or portions of projects, that include green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative
activities.
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 exactly how best to achieve the maximum public health protection for each
dollar expended through the program. For example, states can:
• establish programs to provide additional subsidies, including negative interest loans or
principal forgiveness to communities that the state determines to be disadvantaged;
• determine the proper balance between infrastructure and programmatic investment; and
• Set-aside capitalization grant funds to provide other types of assistance to encourage
more efficient and sustainable drinking water system management and to fund programs
to protect source water from contamination. (Historically the states have set-aside a total
of 16 percent of the funds awarded to them for these purposes, which includes 4 percent
to run the program).
727
-------
For fiscal years 2010-2013, appropriated funds will be allocated to the states in accordance with
each state's proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need as determined by the most
recent Needs Survey and Assessment.4 There is also a statutory constraint that each state and the
District of Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allotment.
The Federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address
drinking water infrastructure needs. States are required to provide a 20 percent match for their
capitalization grant. Some states elect to leverage their capitalization grants through the public
debt markets to enable the state to provide more assistance. These features, coupled with the
revolving fund design of the program, have enabled the states to provide assistance equal to 194
percent of the Federal capitalization invested in the program. In other words, for every $1 the
Federal government invests in this program, the states, in total, have been able to deliver $1.94 in
assistance to water systems.
Prior to allotting funds to the states, EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the SDWA, as
amended, to create certain set-asides. $2 million pays the costs of small system monitoring for
unregulated contaminants. EPA will continue to reserve up to 2 percent (up from 1.5 percent as
outlined in Section 1452 (i) of SDWA, as amended) of appropriated funds for Indian tribes and
Alaska Native Villages. These funds are awarded either directly to tribes or, on behalf of tribes,
to the Indian Health Service through Interagency Agreements. EPA also will continue to set
aside up to 1.5 percent for territories (up from 0.33 percent as outlined in Section 1452 (j) of
SDWA, as amended).5
In FY 2011, EPA is requesting a total of $1.287 billion to fund approximately 500 additional
infrastructure improvement projects to public drinking water systems. Combined with the FY
2009 appropriation ($829 million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding
($2 billion), and the enacted FY 2010 appropriation ($1.387 billion), approximately $5.5 billion
will be invested through Federal capitalization grants awarded to the DWSRF over the course of
three years. There is a significant backlog of construction and maintenance projects that have
substantial need for financing through the DWSRF. The requested funding for this program will
support urgently needed infrastructure investments to rebuild and enhance America's drinking
water infrastructure. Additional details on DWSRF funding by the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The DWSRF program provides access to financing and offers a limited subsidy to help utilities
moderate the magnitude of water rate increases necessary to address decades of underinvestment
in infrastructure repair and replacement. Most DWSRF assistance is offered in the form of loans
which water utilities repay from the revenues they generate through the rates they charge their
customers for service. Our nation's water utilities face the need to significantly increase the rate
at which they invest in drinking water infrastructure repair and replacement to keep pace with
4 The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009.
For more information please see
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=d33d92f2df290eOc2365599cb09f0669
728
-------
their aging infrastructure, much of which is approaching the end of its useful life. At the same
time, many utilities that would have traditionally financed infrastructure investment through
public debt offerings will be turning to the DWSRF program to secure financing.
The Federal contribution to water and wastewater infrastructure has been substantially
incorporated into the SRFs. These funds, combined, now produce approximately $5 billion in
repayments each year. As the Funds have grown, the need for Federal capitalization will decline
over the next decade. Some ongoing contribution will be maintained to ensure that the neediest
communities are adequately served. For 2011, EPA proposes a new approach to helping small
drinking water systems, as well as reforms to improve the long-term financial, managerial, and
environmental sustainability of the SRFs. As part of that strategy, Federal dollars provided
through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in
technical, financial and managerial capacity, and the design, construction and on-going man-
agement of sustainable water infrastructure.
A recent performance assessment of the DWSRF program found that it had implemented
acceptable performance measures. The program also tracks the national long-term average
revolving level of the fund to assess long-term sustainability.
In FY 2011, EPA is requesting transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside
Grant and Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside programs to allow tribes the
flexibility to direct drinking water and wastewater funds to their highest priority projects.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Number of additional
projects initiating
operations.
FY 2009
Target
445
FY 2009
Actual
480
FY 2010
Target
450
FY2011
Target
500
Units
Projects
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
89.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
92.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
91
Units
Percent
Population
729
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches including
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
*Fund utilization rate
fortheDWSRF.
FY 2009
Target
89
FY 2009
Actual
92
FY 2010
Target
86
FY2011
Target
89
Units
Rate
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
(-$100,000.0) This change reflects a decrease for drinking water infrastructure projects.
Combined with the FY 2009 appropriation ($829 million), American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($2 billion), and the enacted FY 2010 appropriation ($1.387
billion), approximately $5.5 billion will be invested through Federal capitalization grants
awarded to the DWSRF over the course of three years.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
730
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,911.8
$12,911.8
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$17,000.0
$17,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($7,000.0)
($7,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The United States and Mexico share more than 2,000 miles of common border. More than 14.6
million people live in the border area, mostly in fifteen "sister city pairs." The rapid increase in
population and industrialization in the border cities has overwhelmed existing wastewater
treatment and drinking water supply facilities. Untreated sewage pollutes urban waters that flow
north into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexicali, and Nogales, into the Rio Grande or the Pacific
Ocean. EPA works closely with program partners to evaluate public health and environmental
needs and to provide grant funding for the planning, design, and construction of high priority
water and wastewater treatment facilities along the border.
The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure program will continue to work with the ten border
states (four U.S. and six Mexican) and local communities to improve the region's water quality
and public health. The U.S. and Mexican governments will collaborate on water infrastructure
projects to reduce health risks to residents including sensitive populations of children and elders
who may currently lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Additionally, by providing
homes with access to basic sanitation, EPA and its partners will reduce the discharge of untreated
wastewater into surface and ground water.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Since 1994, Congress has appropriated approximately $990 million in State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) for water infrastructure projects in the Border Region. Of this
amount, the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure program has awarded approximately $644
million to the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) at the North American
Development Bank (NADB) for construction of high-priority drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects. As of November 2009, the program has completed 51 of the 84 projects
funded to date, providing first-time or improved drinking water or sewer service to 4 million
people.
To ensure responsible fiscal management of BEIF funds, the Agency implemented project
management enhancements in 2005. These enhancements focus on minimizing unliquidated
BEIF balances at the NADB, while also improving project completion rates to ensure the timely
delivery of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to communities along the border.
731
-------
Project management enhancements included time limits for project development and
construction phases and requirements to initiate BEIF disbursements within two years of EPA's
approval of project financing packages. Further, EPA finalized a fiscal policy in FY 2007 which
provides clear direction for expediting completion of older projects and disbursement of funds.
These reforms have led to considerable improvements in the program's unliquidated balances
and project completion rates. The program has reduced the unliquidated BEIF balance by nearly
60 percent, from approximately $300 million in 2007 to $126.4 million in November 2009.6
In FY 2011, the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure program will continue to fund high
priority water and wastewater infrastructure projects that have been evaluated and ranked using a
risk-based prioritization system which enables the program to direct BEIF funding to projects
that demonstrate high human health benefits, cost-effectiveness, institutional capacity and
sustainability. Also in FY 2011, EPA will have fully transit!oned to a new grants award process
that separates the award of planning and design funds from the award of construction funds. The
goal of the new awards process is to expedite the use of program funding. In response to
Congressional direction in the FY 2009 Appropriation process, EPA awarded FY 2009 funds
consistent with the new grants-award process by funding 27 projects for planning and design.
With the $10 million requested for FY 2011, EPA will award approximately $8 million to the
NADB to fund 7 of the 27 construction ready projects. Approximately $2 million will be
awarded to the BECC for planning and design of new projects, with the purpose of continuing to
build and thus maintain a portfolio of projects that are ready for construction. Final decisions on
use of FY 2011 funding will be based on balancing the construction readiness of fully designed
projects with the planning and design needs of prioritized projects.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided safe
drinking water in the
U.S. -Mexico border
area that lacked access
to safe drinking water
in 2003 . (cumulative)
FY 2009
Target
1,500
FY 2009
Actual
1,584
FY 2010
Target
28,434
FY2011
Target
33,434
Units
Homes
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided
adequate wastewater
sanitation in the U.S.-
Mexico border area
that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation
in 2003 (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
105,500
FY 2009
Actual
43,594
FY 2010
Target
246,175
FY2011
Target
345,675
Units
Homes
6 EPA is in the process of obligating an additional $6.5 million to the NADBank for water infrastructure projects selected through
the FY 2009/2010 prioritized project selection process.
732
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Loading of
biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)
removed (million
pounds/year) from the
U.S. -Mexico border
area since 2003 .
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
24
Units
Million
Pounds/Year
The increase in targets for water and wastewater connections in the U.S. Mexico Border area
between FY09 and FY10 is entirely attributable to the fact that the program now reports
cumulative (rather than annual) targets.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7,000.0) This reduces a Congressionally-directed increase in funding in FY 2010 that
was not carried forward in FY 2011. The requested level of funding will allow the
Agency to fund a portion of fully planned and designed projects for construction while
continuing efforts to providing access to safe drinking water and sanitary systems for
underserved communities in the region. EPA is closely monitoring fund disbursements
and project completion rates to ensure sufficient funding for current and future projects.
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"; CWA.
733
-------
Targeted Airshed Grants
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($20,000.0)
($20,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports grants to the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District and the South
Coast Air Quality Management District to continue emission reduction activities in the
transportation, agriculture and ports sectors. These grants are matched by the districts on a one-
to-one basis.
In addition, the program supports competitive grants to reduce air pollution in nonattainment
areas that are ranked as the top five most polluted areas relative to annual ozone or PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is to determine those areas based on
the most recent design values calculated from validated air quality data.
The grants under this program are awarded by EPA to the two named Air Quality Districts and
EPA will run a competition for the remaining fund using the criteria specified by the Congress.
The FY 2010 funds can be used for emission reduction projects in the transportation, agriculture
and ports sectors. The Agency anticipates that many of the projects will be for diesel emission
reduction activities but others could be proposed. The San Joaquin and South Coast Air Quality
Management Districts received funding in FY 2009 for diesel emission reduction activities under
the Diesel Emission Reduction Act Grants program. There were no competition funds in FY
2009. The SCAQMD funds were used for vehicle replacement at ports; the San Joaquin projects
focused on diesel agricultural pumps and of-road vehicles.
The FY 2010 funds are available for emission reduction activities deemed necessary for
compliance with NAAQS and included in State Implementation Plans submitted to EPA.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011, because the existing nationwide Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act program is a more effective mechanism for addressing diesel emissions
from legacy engines. Under the DERA competitive grant criteria, nonattainment areas are likely
to receive significant funding for pollution reduction.
734
-------
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$20,000.0) The FY 2011 President's Budget does not continue funding for these grants.
Statutory Authority:
P-L.111-88.
735
-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
736
-------
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,905.2
$9,905.2
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA awards grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to improve
water quality monitoring at beaches and to notify the public of beach warnings and closings.
The Beach grant program is a collaborative effort between EPA and states, territories, local
governments, and tribes to help ensure that recreational waters are safe for swimming. Congress
created the program with the passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act (BEACH Act) in October 2000 with the goal of improving water quality testing at
beaches and to help beach managers better inform the public when there are water quality
problems.
EPA awards grants to eligible states, territories, and tribes using an allocation formula developed
in consultation with states and other organizations. The allocation takes into consideration beach
season length, beach miles, and beach use. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ and
https://www.cfda.gov/ for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Eligible states, territories, tribes and localities will receive BEACH Act grants to: (1) administer
the grant program; (2) implement monitoring and notification programs consistent with EPA
guidance; and (3) submit monitoring and advisory data to EPA for production of an annual report
in a timely manner.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of days of
beach season that
coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
beach safety programs
are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2009
Target
93
FY 2009
Actual
95
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Days/Season
-------
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
738
-------
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$50,586.9
$50,586.9
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency's Brownfields program coordinates a Federal, Tribal, state, and local government
approach to assist in addressing environmental site assessment and cleanup of brownfields.
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with
these contaminated properties and abandoned sites.
Through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 128(a), categorical grants are provided to states and tribes for their
Brownfields response programs. State and Tribal response programs address contaminated
brownfields sites that do not require Federal action, but need cleanup before the sites are
considered for reuse. States and tribes may use grant funding provided under this program in the
following ways: 1) developing a public record; 2) creating an inventory of brownfields sites; 3)
developing oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms and resources; 4)
developing mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public
participation; 5) developing mechanisms for approval of a cleanup plan and verification and
certification that cleanup is complete; 6) capitalizing a Revolving Loan Fund for brownfields-
related work; 7) purchasing environmental insurance; and 8) conducting site-specific related
activities, such as assessments and cleanups at brownfields sites.7
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to establish and enhance eligible state and Tribal response
programs of states, U.S. territories, and tribes under CERCLA 128(a). EPA also will continue to
issue grants to states and tribes for their response programs to cleanup brownfields sites before
reuse. Building response program capacity of states and tribes to address the assessment and
cleanup of sites with actual or perceived contamination will increase the number of acres ready
for reuse, an important first step in revitalizing communities across the country.
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/state_tribal/index.html.
739
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program project also supports performance results in STAG: Brownfields
Program Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
740
-------
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,628.5
$12,628.5
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$10,200.0
$10,200.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$200.0
$200.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Network, EN) is a standards-
based, secure information partnership to facilitate electronic reporting, sharing, integration,
analysis, and use of environmental data from many different sources. EN grants provide funding
to states, territories, Federally-recognized native tribes, and tribal consortia to support their
participation in the Exchange Network. These grants help EN partners acquire and develop the
hardware and software needed to connect to the EN, and to use the EN to develop or acquire the
data they need with greater efficiency and to integrate environmental data across programs in
ways previously not possible. By supporting the exchange and integration of data to meet the
partners' program and business needs, the EN facilitates sound environmental and health
decision-making while enhancing public access to environmental data.
Development of the Exchange Network has largely been funded through these grants. Currently
all 50 states, 8 tribes, and one territory have submitted data to EPA using the EN. As of the end
of FY 2009, 46 states, 7 tribes, and one territory used the Exchange Network to submit data for
major regulatory programs and major national data systems. Major national data systems
implemented in FY 2009 include the Underground Injection Control System, which supports the
Source Water Protection Program, and the NET-Discharge Monitoring Reporting System. In
addition, major enhancements were made to 5 systems, including, the Emissions Inventory
System and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EN partners have submitted other
non-regulatory data to EPA and have shared data with each other through the EN. EPA and
state, tribal, and territorial partners are reaping tremendous data management and environmental
benefits from these activities. For example, the Water Quality Exchange (WQX) has
dramatically expanded the proportion of the nation's surface waters for which pollution control
officials have near-real-time water quality data. Twenty-three states are now using the EN to
submit water quality data on 113,000 monitoring stations. Partnership projects completed
include Open Node 2.0, which enables sharing of open source software, and initial stages of the
Puget Sound Restoration Project.
741
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
More work is needed to fully realize the potential environmental and health benefits that the
Exchange Network's data management capabilities can yield, including protecting vulnerable
populations, enhancing scientific analysis, and strengthening the collaborative network of
Federal, state and local partners. Therefore, in FY 2011, the EN Grants Program will emphasize
activities to achieve the following program goals:
1) Growing the EN by developing the necessary infrastructure for tribes, territories and
Federal agencies.
2) Supporting the development and exchange of regulatory and non-regulatory data
flows. Because all 50 states have operational connections to the EN (nodes), the
major emphasis of the grant program has shifted toward supporting partners as they
expand the number of regulatory data flows and to developing and exchanging non-
regulatory data flows, such as WQX.
3) Expanding data sharing among partners. EPA plans to solicit applications for
innovative data reporting methodologies surrounding climate change challenges, for
projects promoting data sharing for areas where air quality is a regional concern, and
for geographic areas of concern, such as the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Chesapeake Bay.
4) Supporting multi-partner projects to plan, mentor, and train EN partners, and develop
and exchange data. These projects help encourage broader participation by existing
and new partners; they also support innovation and improve the quality of individual
grant products which, in turn, makes it easier to promote their re-use among a larger
cross-section of Network partners, making one of the Network's operating principles,
"build one, use many" a reality.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$200.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority
Exchange Network Grant Program has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: FY
2002 (Public Law 107-73), FY 2003 (Public Law 108-7), FY 2004 (Public Law 108-199) FY
2005 (Public Law 108-447) and FY 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5),
FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
742
-------
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$102,332.3
$102,332.3
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$105,412.0
$105,412.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$2,066.0
$2,066.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to assist state programs
through the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants program. The states propose
legislation and upgrade regulations to achieve equivalence with the Federal Hazardous Waste
Management program and then apply to EPA for authorization to administer the program. The
state grants provide for the implementation of an authorized hazardous waste management
program for the purpose of controlling the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes, including controlling and cleaning up past and continuing releases
from hazardous waste management facilities through corrective action. This funding also
provides for the direct implementation of the RCRA program for the States of Iowa and Alaska,
which have not been authorized to operate in lieu of the Federal program. Funding distributed
through these grants also supports tribes, where appropriate, in conducting hazardous waste work
on Tribal lands.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The RCRA Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance program fosters state and Tribal partnerships
to minimize or clean-up hazardous waste facility releases in local communities. In FY 2011,
additional funding will be provided for the following activities accomplished by states and by
EPA for Iowa and Alaska, using RCRA Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance funds:
• Increase the number of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits,
permit renewals, or other approved controls. This includes the following activities:
o Issue operating and post-closure permits, or use appropriate enforcement mechanisms
to address environmental risk at inactive land-based facilities.
o Approve closure plans for interim status treatment and storage facilities that are not
seeking permits to operate and work with the facilities to clean-close those units.
o Issue permit renewals for hazardous waste management facilities to keep permit
controls up to date.
743
-------
• Issue permit modifications, as needed.
• Operate comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to the
RCRA hazardous waste program.
• Work with facilities to complete site assessments, control human exposures and the
migration of contaminated groundwater, and make determinations regarding construction
of final remedies as part of the efforts toward meeting the proposed goals for the RCRA
Corrective Action program.
EPA developed efficiency measures to improve performance of the RCRA Corrective Action
and RCRA Base, Permits and Grants programs. The efficiency measures for these programs
show the number of final remedy components constructed or RCRA facilities brought under
controls, respectively, each year per million dollars of program cost.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,066.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation. This additional funding will be
provided to grantees as part of the grant allocations in support of hazardous waste
management oversight.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A, Sections 3011 (a) and (c) as amended; RCRA of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580,
42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat. 2461, 2499
(1988).
744
-------
Categorical Grant: Lead
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14,295.1
$14,295.1
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$14,564.0
$14,564.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$14,855.0
$14,855.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$291.0
$291.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Data from the Centers for Disease Control document significant progress in the continued effort
to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. However, new data shows
adverse health effects to children at lower levels than previously recognized.8 EPA's Lead Risk
Reduction Program, supported by State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) resources under
this program as well as Environmental Program and Management (EPM) resources under a
companion program contribute to the goal of minimizing the threat to human health, particularly
to young children, from environmental lead exposure in the following ways:
• Establishes standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices and
maintains a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement those
standards;
• Provides information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and take
actions about lead hazards in their homes;
• Establishes lead-safe work practice standards for renovation, repair and painting projects
in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint; and
• Works to establish a national pool of renovation contractors trained and certified to
implement those standards.
The Lead Categorical Grant Program contributes to the lead program's goals by providing
support to authorized state and tribal programs that administer training and certification
programs for lead professionals and renovation contractors. The program also engages in
8 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 58823
Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children - how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16): 1515-1516
http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.neim.20030417.pdf
Lanphear BP, Homung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an
international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
745
-------
outreach to educate populations deemed most at risk of exposure to lead from lead-based paint,
dust, and soil. See http://www.epa.gov/lead for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the program will continue providing assistance to states, territories, the District of
Columbia, and tribes to develop and implement authorized programs for lead-based paint
abatement and inspections, as well as renovation, repair and painting in homes with lead-based
paint. EPA also will implement these programs in all areas of the country without an authorized
program through direct implementation by the Agency. Activities conducted as part of this
program include the certification of individuals and firms, the accreditation of training programs
and the enforcement of relevant work practice standards.
EPA recognizes that additional attention and assistance must be given to vulnerable populations
including those with rates of lead poisoning in excess of the national average, and those living in
areas where conditions indicate potentially high rates of lead poisoning but where screening has
not yet occurred with sufficient frequency. To address this issue, in FY 2011 EPA will award
targeted grants to reduce childhood lead poisoning. These grants will be awarded to a wide
range of applicants, including state and local governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes
and tribal consortia, territories, institutions of higher learning, and nonprofit organizations.
Performance Targets:
Activities for this appropriation support GPRA measures listed for the Toxic Substances: Lead
Risk Reduction Program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$291.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
Toxic Substances Control Act.
746
-------
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The FY 2010 Enacted Budget included $10,000,000 for EPA's Air and Radiation program to
implement a competitive grant program to assist local communities in establishing and
implementing their own climate change initiatives. The goal of this program is to implement
programs, projects, and approaches that demonstrate documentable reductions in greenhouse
gases (GHGs) and are replicable elsewhere. While the Agency anticipates this program will lead
to emission reductions, the Agency will rely on existing EPA partnership programs to achieve
future greenhouse gas reductions.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
There are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10,000.0) This is a decrease that discontinues funding for these grants in the FY 2011
President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
P.L. 111-8(H.R. 1105), 123 STAT. 524; P-L. 111-88.
747
-------
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
As tribes' environmental programs become increasingly sophisticated, additional resources are
needed for Tribal implementation of Tribal and Federal programs. As stated in the 1984 EPA
Indian policy of self-government, "In keeping with the principal of Indian self-government, the
Agency will view Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal parties for making
decisions and carrying out program responsibilities affecting Indian reservations, their
environments, and the health and welfare of the reservation populace." As Tribal capacity
increases, Tribal governments are seeking additional resources to carry out new program
delegations and responsibilities.
EPA is proposing a new multi-media implementation grant for tribes. Under Federal
environmental statutes, EPA has responsibility for protecting human health and the environment
in Indian country and has worked with tribes to establish the internal infrastructure and capacity
for environmental priorities and decision making. Currently, there is no consolidated, flexible
program available to support tribal implementation of environmental programs. Tribes overall
suffer disproportionately and lag significantly behind state and Federal programs in achieving
environmental and health protection, including the lack of access to safe drinking water,
sanitation, solid waste management systems, and safeguards that result from other basic Federal
environmental programs. At the same time, many Tribal governments have made tremendous
progress in the last 20 years, and many tribes throughout the nation manage increasingly
complex environmental programs. This new grant program will facilitate self-government and
fulfill EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment in Indian country.
The new multi-media grants will be tailored to address an individual tribe's most serious
environmental needs through the implementation of Federal environmental programs. These
grants will build upon the environmental capacity developed under the Indian General Assistance
Program (GAP) and will include negotiated environmental plans, measures and results as agreed
upon by tribes and EPA. GAP grants are essential to improving human and environmental health
in Indian country, but given GAP's current constraints on implementation, tribes can find it
difficult to transition from establishing the foundation of an environmental program to the actual
implementation of media-specific programs. This new grant authority will transition a tribe into
748
-------
program implementation and will ensure that EPA and Tribal environmental priorities are
addressed to the fullest extent possible.
The Agency seeks legislative authority and funding to establish the new multi-media grant
program for Tribal implementation. This program advances the Administrator's priority that
EPA programs are consistently delivered nationwide. It also allows the Agency and tribes to
have flexibility to direct resources to environmental statutes (i.e., CWA, CAA, RCRA, etc.) and
specific programs (i.e., climate change) which are needed to service their community. Tribes
would negotiate specific activities with EPA through program workplans, identify the measures
and outputs for accountability, and ensure the effectiveness for this Federal funding.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
As tribes' environmental programs become increasingly sophisticated, additional resources are
needed for implementation of Tribal priority actions to protect the environment. In FY 2011,
EPA will launch a new multi-media implementation grant program which will assist Indian
Tribal governments in implementing environmental programs, going beyond establishing an
environmental presence. Examples of possible uses include but are not limited to:
• Develop and implement programs consistent with EPA statutory authorities such as CAA
105, CWA 106, RCRA and other tribal priorities. This may include tribal activities such
as monitoring, permitting, and other implementation responsibilities;
• The multi-media implementation funding will be directed toward federally-recognized
tribes with mutually-agreed upon EPA/tribal-prioritized programs.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's efforts to Improve Human Health and the Environment
in Indian country. There are currently no performance measures connected to this specific
program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$30,000.0) The new grant program will allow the Agency to provide multi-media
grants to tribes for implementation of Federal environmental programs.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriation Acts; GAP; PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SOW A; RCRA;
CERCLA; NAFTA; OAPCA; MPRSA; CRCA; Indoor Radon Abatement Act.
Note: EPA is currently seeking appropriations language to support this program: "Provided
further, That, of the funds otherwise available under the heading State and Tribal Assistance
Grants, $30 million is provided for grants to federally recognized Indian tribes for
implementation of environmental programs and projects as defined by the Administrator,
including associated program support costs and interagency agreements;"
749
-------
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$214,498.2
$214,498.2
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff that carries excess nutrients, toxics and other
contaminants to waterbodies, is the greatest remaining source of surface and ground water
quality impairments and threats in the United States. Grants under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) are provided to states, territories, and tribes to help them implement their
EPA-approved nonpoint source (NFS) management programs by remediating past NFS pollution
and preventing or minimizing new NFS pollution.
Section 319 broadly authorizes states to use a range of tools to implement their programs,
including: regulatory and non-regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration projects. States currently focus
$100 million of their Section 319 funds on the development and implementation of watershed-
based plans that are designed to restore impaired waters (listed under CWA Section 303(d)) to
meet water quality standards. See http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2003/October/
Day-23/w26755.htm and https://www.cfda.gov for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The pervasiveness of nonpoint source pollution requires cooperation and involvement from EPA,
other Federal agencies, the states, and concerned citizens to address NFS pollution problems. In
FY 2011, EPA will work closely with and support the many efforts of states, interstate agencies,
tribes, local governments and communities, watershed groups, and others to develop and
implement their local watershed-based plans and restore surface and ground waters nationwide.
States will continue to develop and implement watershed-based plans to restore impaired
waterbodies to meet water quality standards. These watershed-based plans, a key emphasis of
the national nonpoint source control program, will move EPA toward the strategic goal of more
waters attaining designated uses and enable states to determine the most cost-effective means to
meet their water quality goals through: the analysis of sources and relative significance of
pollutants of concern; cost-effective techniques to address those sources; availability of needed
resources, authorities, and community involvement to effect change; and monitoring that will
enable states and local communities to track progress and make changes over time that they
750
-------
deem necessary to meet their water quality goals. Full requirements for these plans are described
in detail in the NFS program grant guidelines. For more information see http://www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/cwact.html.
EPA will continue to forge and strengthen strategic partnerships with the agricultural and
forestry communities, developers, and other groups that have an interest in achieving water
quality goals in a cost-effective manner. Agricultural sources of pollution in the form of excess
fertilizer or pesticides have had a particularly profound effect on water quality. Therefore, EPA
will work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that Federal
resources—including both Section 319 grants and Farm Bill funds—are managed in a coordinated
manner to protect water quality from agricultural pollution sources. More broadly, EPA will
work with states to ensure that they develop and implement their watershed-based plans in close
cooperation with state conservationists, soil and water conservation districts, and all other
interested parties within the watersheds.
EPA will continue to track the steady increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of
nonpoint source projects financed with Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) loans to
prevent polluted runoff. Properly managed onsite/decentralized systems are an important part of
the nation's wastewater infrastructure and EPA will encourage state, Tribal, and local
governments to adopt effective management systems and use CWSRF loans to finance systems
where appropriate.
The annual output measures are to annually reduce the amount of runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen,
and sediment through Section 319 funded projects by 4.5 million pounds, 8.5 million pounds,
and 700 thousand tons, respectively. Sediment loading reductions have exceeded yearly targets
since 2003, while phosphorus and nitrogen load reductions have been partially met. In 2004,
2005, and 2008, phosphorus loading reductions did not meet targets and in 2005, nitrogen
loading reductions were not met. EPA believes that these exceptions reflect the natural
variability of the type and scope of projects implemented each year. For example, some states
are currently focusing on remediating waters that have been 303(d) listed for other pollutants that
are not nationally tracked for load reduction calculations, such as pathogens, temperature, or
acidity.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Estimated annual
reduction in millions of
pounds of phosphorus
from nonpoint sources
to waterbodies.
(Section 3 19 funded
projects only)
FY 2009
Target
4.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
4.5
FY2011
Target
4.5
Units
Pounds
(million)
751
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Estimated additional
reduction in million
pounds of nitrogen
from nonpoint sources
to waterbodies.
(Section 3 19 funded
projects only)
FY 2009
Target
8.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
8.5
FY2011
Target
8.5
Units
Pounds
(million)
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Estimated additional
reduction in thousands
of tons of sediment
from nonpoint sources
to waterbodies.
(Section 3 19 funded
projects only)
FY 2009
Target
700,000
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
700,000
FY2011
Target
700,000
Units
Tons
(thousand)
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
752
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$19,208.7
$19,208.7
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$19,085.0
$19,085.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$374.0
$374.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Pesticide Enforcement grants ensure pesticide product and user compliance with provisions of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Areas of focus include:
inspections relating to pesticide worker safety protection, antimicrobial products, food safety,
adverse effects, and e-commerce. The program provides compliance assistance to the regulated
community through such resources as EPA's National Agriculture Compliance Assistance
Center, seminars, guidance documents, brochures, and outreach to foster knowledge of and
compliance with environmental laws pertaining to pesticides.9 The program also sponsors
training for state/Tribal inspectors through the Pesticide Inspector Residential Program (PIRT)
and for state/Tribal managers through the Pesticide Regulatory Education Program (PREP).
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will award state and Tribal enforcement grants to assist in the implementation
of the compliance and enforcement provisions of FIFRA. These grants support state and Tribal
compliance and enforcement activities designed to protect the environment from harmful
chemicals and pesticides. EPA's support to state and Tribal pesticide programs will emphasize
pesticide worker protection standards, high risk pesticide activities including antimicrobials,
pesticide misuse in urban areas, and the misapplication of structural pesticides. States also will
continue to conduct compliance monitoring inspections on core pesticide requirements.
Performance Targets:
Performance targets for this program are undergoing revision. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$374.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority: FIFRA
1 For additional information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.
753
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,772.0
$12,772.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,520.0
$13,520.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$13,690.0
$13,690.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$170.0
$170.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's mission as related to pesticides is to protect human health and the environment from
pesticide risk and to realize the value of pesticide availability by considering the economic,
social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of pesticides.10 The Agency provides
grants to assist states, tribes and partners with worker safety activities, protection of endangered
species11 and water sources from pesticide exposure, and promotion of environmental
stewardship. In addition, the Agency provides grants to promote stronger Tribal pesticide
programs. The Agency achieves this goal through implementation of its statutes and regulatory
actions.
Pesticides program implementation grants ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions made at the
national level are translated into results on the local level. EPA provides resources for those
closest to the source of potential risks from pesticides since they are in a position to better
evaluate risks and implement risk reduction measures. Stakeholders at the local level, including
states and tribes provide essential support in implementing pesticides programs. The Agency
engages stakeholders in the regulatory process considering their input regarding effectiveness
and soundness of regulatory decisions. The states and tribes also develop data to measure
program performance. Under pesticide statutes, responsibility for ensuring proper pesticide use
is in large part delegated to states and tribes. Grant resources allow states and tribes to be more
effective regulatory partners.
10 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/regulating/laws.htm
11 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)l and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 Internet site:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA35/ESA35DaleOA.html
754
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Certification and Training/Worker Protection
Through the Certification and Training/Worker Protection programs, EPA protects workers,
pesticide applicators/handlers, employers, and the public from the potential risks posed by
pesticides in their homes and work environments. EPA will continue to provide assistance and
grants to implement the Certification and Training/Worker Protection programs. Grants fund
maintenance and improvements in training networks, safety training to workers and pesticide
handlers, development of Train the Trainer courses, workshops, and development and
distribution of outreach materials. The Agency's partnership with states and tribes in educating
workers, farmers, and employers on the safe use of pesticides and worker safety will continue to
be a major focus. See http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.
Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)
The ESPP protects animals and plants whose populations are threatened by risks associated with
pesticide use. EPA complies with Endangered Species Act requirements to ensure that its
regulatory decisions are not likely to jeopardize species listed as endangered and threatened, or
harm habitat critical to those species' survival. EPA will provide grants to states and tribes for
projects supporting endangered species protection. Program implementation includes outreach,
communication, education related to use limitations, review and distribution of Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins, and mapping and development of endangered species protection
plans. These activities support the Agency's mission to protect the environment from pesticide
risk.
Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure
Protecting the nation's water sources from possible pesticide contamination is another
component of EPA's environmental protection efforts. The Agency provides funding through
cooperative agreements to states and Tribal pesticide lead agencies to investigate and respond to
water resource contamination by pesticides. States and tribes also are expected to evaluate local
pesticides uses that have potential to contaminate water resources, and take steps to prevent or
reduce contamination where pesticide concentrations approach or exceed levels of concern.
EPA's Cooperative Agreements typically include the following three-tier approach:
1. Evaluate: pesticides which may have the potential to threaten water quality locally;
2. Manage: If the evaluation identifies that the pesticide may be found at levels locally
which pose water quality concerns, take actions to manage those pesticides and mitigate
exposure; and,
3. Demonstrate Progress: For pesticides that are actively managed, examine available data
and trends to demonstrate improvement in water quality.
755
-------
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP):
The PESP forms partnerships between EPA and pesticide user groups to reduce pesticide use and
risk through pollution prevention strategies and promoting the use of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) techniques. PESP currently has almost 200 partnering and supporting
organizations. They range from Federal partners (e.g., Department of Defense) to state partners
(e.g., Maryland Department of Agriculture), to trade associations and individual companies.
EPA will continue to support risk reduction by providing assistance to promote the use of safer
alternatives to traditional chemical pest control methods. EPA supports the development and
evaluation of new pest management technologies that contribute to reducing both health and
environmental risks from pesticide use.
For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/pesp/.
Tribal
The Agency will support Tribal activities implementing pesticide programs through grants.
Tribal program outreach activities support Tribal capacity to protect human health by reducing
risk from pesticides in Indian country. This task is challenging given that aspects of Native
Americans' lifestyles, such as subsistence fishing or consumption of plants that were specifically
grown as food and possibly exposed to pesticides not intended for food use, may increase
exposure to some chemicals or create unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional
information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadI/tribes/.
EPA also supports environmental justice communities through the pesticides programs. In FY
2011, the Agency will improve pesticide control practices through enhanced education and
outreach in these communities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the following programs through grants to states, tribes,
partners, and supporters: Certification and Training/Worker Protection, Endangered Species
Protection Program (ESPP) Field Activities, Pesticides in Water, Tribal Program, and Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program. Currently, there are no performance measures for this
specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$270.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
• (-$100.0) This change partially reduces additional support for grants that address
emerging pesticide issues provided in FY 2010.
756
-------
Statutory Authority:
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; Endangered Species Act (ESA).
757
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$216,836.3
$216,836.3
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$274,264.0
$274,264.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$45,000.0
$45,000.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to provide Federal assistance to
states (including territories and the District of Columbia), tribes qualified under CWA Section
518(e), and interstate agencies to establish and maintain adequate measures for the prevention
and control of surface and ground water pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Prevention
and control measures supported through these grants include providing permits, monitoring and
assessment, standards development, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development,
surveillance and enforcement, pollution control studies, water quality planning, advice and
assistance to local agencies, training, and public information. The grants also may be used to
provide "in-kind" support through an EPA contract if requested by a state or tribe.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to foster a
"watershed approach" as the guiding principle of their clean water programs. This approach
conducts and assesses monitoring efforts, develops TMDLs, writes National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and regulates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs) with the goal of sustaining and improving the entire watershed.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Section 106 grant program supports prevention and control measures that improve water
quality management programs. In FY 2011, EPA will designate the requested additional $45
million to strengthen the base state, interstate and Tribal programs, address emerging water
quality issues such as nutrients and new regulatory requirements, and support expanded
enforcement efforts. This increase will support these core state water quality activities during a
time of constrained state budgets.
Monitoring and assessment
EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of Federal, regional, state, and local level monitoring
efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic scales in a cost-
efficient and effective manner. Increased funding will ensure that scientifically defensible
monitoring data is available to address issues and problems at each of these scales.
758
-------
In FY 2011, EPA will continue working with states and tribes to fully implement their water
quality monitoring programs. Monitoring Initiative funds for states and tribes will continue to
support statistically-valid reports on national water conditions and to implement monitoring
strategies. In FY 2011, $23.5 million will be designated for states and tribes under the Initiative:
$13.5 million for monitoring as part of statistically-valid reports on national water condition, and
$10 million for states to implement their monitoring strategies.
In addition, EPA will work with states to develop and apply innovative and efficient monitoring
tools and techniques to optimize availability of high quality data to support CWA program
needs, and expand the use of monitoring data and geo-spatial tools for water resource protection
to set priorities and evaluate effectiveness of water protection. This will allow EPA, states, and
tribes to continue to report on the condition of the nation's waters, and make significant progress
toward assessing trends in water condition in a scientifically-defensible manner.
As part of the National Survey, EPA, states, and tribes will collaborate to conduct field sampling
for the wetlands baseline survey to be completed and published in a FY 2013 report, and will be
analyzing data from the fifth statistically-valid survey of coastal waters to report on trends in FY
2012. EPA, states, and tribes will also prepare the second report on the condition of wadeable
streams, which will track changes since the baseline survey issued in 2006. This report will
include a baseline assessment of the condition of rivers nationally. A portion of the FY 2011
CWA Section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds will be used for sampling and analysis for the
second statistically-valid survey of lakes nationwide, with a report scheduled in 2014.
Review and Update Water Quality Standards
States and authorized tribes will continue to review and update their water quality standards as
required by the CWA. The Agency's goal is that 85 percent of state and territorial submissions
will be approvable in FY 2011. EPA also encourages states to continually review and update
water quality criteria in their standards to reflect the latest scientific information from EPA and
other sources. EPA's goal for FY 2011 is that 64.3 percent of states will have updated their
standards to reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years. Finally, EPA will
continue to work with tribes that want to establish water quality standards.
In impaired watersheds, EPA policy guides states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs), critical tools for meeting water restoration goals, within 8 to 13 years from the time
the impairment is identified on a 303(d) list. While the pace of TMDL completion has been
affected as states have begun to tackle more challenging TMDLs, such as broad-scale mercury
and nutrient TMDLs, they are still encouraged by EPA to develop TMDLs as expeditiously as
practicable. When possible, numeric TMDLs are encouraged to achieve compliance over time.
Also, EPA will continue to work with states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and
georeferenced water quality data made available to the public via the Assessment, TMDL
Tracking, and Implementation System (ATTAINS). States and EPA have made significant
759
-------
Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
progress in the development and approval of TMDLs. Cumulatively, more than 36,000 state
developed TMDLs were completed through FY 2009.
Providing permits
The states will continue to implement the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy"
(PER), which focuses resources on the most critical environmental problems through program
assessments, permit quality reviews, tracking priority permits and other actions to ensure the
integrity of the program. EPA also is working with states to structure the permit program to
better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis and recent
increases in the scope of the program arising from court orders and environmental issues.
New regulations were finalized in FY 2008 for discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). The revised regulations address the Second Circuit's 2005 decision in
Waterkeeper Alliance et. al. v. EPA and require EPA and authorized states to issue permits for
an expanded universe (from the 1974 regulations) of CAFOs that discharge or propose to
discharge to waters of the U.S. In FY 2009, states began issuing permits that comply with these
regulatory requirements. States also are required to revise their regulations to adopt the
provisions of the new rules by 2009 and revise their statutes by 2010. Additional funding will
support authorized states as they begin implementing the regulation in FY 2011, which involves
outreach, education, and permit development.
Expanding surveillance and enforcement
Despite significant progress reducing water pollution from the largest sources, the country still
faces serious regulatory and compliance challenges in attaining the water quality goals of the
CWA. In FY 2011, EPA will be working closely with states to full implement the Clean Water
Act Enforcement Action Plan to reduce pollution sources and achieve more consistent
compliance performance.
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to work closely with states and tribes with a focus on
collaboration and transparency, both in how EPA allocates funds, and how states and tribes use
Section 106 grants to address surface water pollution problems. EPA also will focus on the
impacts of Section 106 funded activities in addressing water quality and pollution problems on
Tribal lands. Working with Tribal governments, EPA will continue to monitor the
implementation of the Clean Water Act Section 106 Tribal Guidance, which sets out a
framework for tribes to establish, implement and expand their surface water protection programs.
A key performance measure for the Surface Water Protection program is the percentage of water
body segments, identified by states in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality
standards are now attained. EPA state partners play a key role in developing and implementing
plans and documenting progress made toward reaching the FY 2014 target for this measure. The
Agency has been successful in meeting or exceeding performance targets and continues to target,
760
-------
through an allocation formula, a portion of the appropriated funds to support statistically-valid
surveys of water condition.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of States and
Territories that, within
the preceding 3-year
period, submitted new
or revised water quality
criteria acceptable to
EPA that reflect new
scientific information
from EPA or sources
not considered in
previous standards.
FY 2009
Target
68
FY 2009
Actual
62.5
FY 2010
Target
66
FY2011
Target
64.3
Units
Percent
States and
Territories
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of TMDLs
that are established by
States and approved by
EPA [State TMDL] on
schedule consistent
with national policy
(cumulative). [A
TMDL is a technical
plan for reducing
pollutants in order to
obtain water quality
standards. The terms
"approved" and
"established" refer to
the completion and
approval of the TMDL
itself]
FY 2009
Target
33,540
FY 2009
Actual
36,487
FY 2010
Target
39,101
FY2011
Target
41,611
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of major
dischargers in
Significant
Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the
fiscal year.
FY 2009
Target
22.5
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
7010
FY 2010
Target
22.5
FY2011
Target
22.5f
Units
Percent
Dischargers
761
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of high priority
state NPDES permits
that are issued in the
fiscal year.
FY 2009
Target
95
FY 2009
Actual
147
FY 2010
Target
95
FY2011
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
*Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
2,270
FY 2009
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809
FY2011
Target
2,910
Units
Segments
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per water segment
restored.
FY 2009
Target
708,276
FY 2009
Actual
570,250
FY 2010
Target
771,000
FY2011
Target
681,445
Units
Dollars
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt ofARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
t EPA is directing additional attention to Clean Water Act enforcement in FY2011 to target
pollutant sources posing the biggest threats to water quality while intensifying vigorous civil and
criminal enforcement against traditional end-of-pipe pollution. We are also in the process of
redesigning our enforcement approach that will look beyond majors to other important sources.
As we consider a broader range of sources, the definition of SNC may change which may change
our measures and targets accordingly.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$45,000.0) This reflects an increase to strengthen the base state, interstate and Tribal
programs, address emerging water quality issues such as nutrients and new regulatory
requirements, and support expanded enforcement efforts. It includes an increase to assist
states and tribes in meeting inflation costs associated with state and Tribal
implementation.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
762
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,932.3
$4,932.3
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,039.0
$5,039.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$99.0
$99.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prevention (P2) program is one of EPA's primary tools for encouraging
environmental stewardship by the Federal government, states, industry, communities, and
individuals, both domestically and globally and is augmented by a counterpart Environmental
Program and Management (EPM) program. The program employs a combination of
collaborative efforts, innovative programs, and technical assistance and education to support
stakeholder efforts to minimize and prevent adverse environmental impacts by preventing the
generation of pollution at the source. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the P2 Grant program will continue supporting states and state entities (i.e., colleges
and universities) and Federally-recognized tribes and Intertribal Consortia in assisting businesses
in identifying better environmental strategies and solutions for reducing or eliminating pollution
at the source, benefiting all environmental media including air, water, and land. The program
supports projects that reflect comprehensive and coordinated pollution prevention planning and
implementation efforts within the state or tribe to ensure that businesses and industry have ample
opportunities to implement pollution prevention as a cost-effective way of meeting or exceeding
Federal and state regulatory requirements.
P2 Grants are awarded by EPA's Regional Offices. This enables the Agency to focus these
resources on targeted regional priorities. In addition to supporting traditional P2 technical
assistance programs, many states have utilized P2 grants to assist businesses by initiating
regulatory integration projects to implement prevention strategies in state core media programs,
train regulatory staff on P2 concepts, and examine opportunities for incorporating pollution
prevention into permits, inspections, and enforcement. States also have established programs in
non-industrial sectors such as agriculture, energy, health, and transportation.
The Agency also will continue to support the Pollution Prevention Information Network grant
program which funds the services of a network of regional centers, collectively called the
763
-------
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) that provides high quality, peer-reviewed
information to state technical assistance centers.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm and www.p2rx.org.
Performance Targets:
Activities for this appropriation support Government Performance and Results Act measures
listed for the Toxic Substances: Pollution Prevention Program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$99.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 and TSCA.
764
-------
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$99,440.1
$99,440. 1
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant program provides grants to states and tribes
with primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and enforce National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). These grants help to ensure the safety of the nation's
drinking water resources and thereby protect public health.
NPDWRs set forth monitoring, reporting, compliance tracking, and enforcement elements to
ensure that the nation's drinking water supplies do not contain substances at levels that may pose
adverse health effects. These grants are a key implementation tool under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) and support the states' role in a Federal/state partnership of providing safe
drinking water supplies to the public. Grant funds are used by states to:
• Provide technical assistance to owners and operators of water systems;
• Maintain compliance data systems;
• Compile and analyze compliance information;
• Respond to violations;
• Certify laboratories;
• Conduct laboratory analyses;
• Conduct sanitary surveys;
• Draft new regulations and legislative provisions where necessary; and
• Build state capacity.
Not all states and tribes have primary enforcement authority. Funds allocated to the State of
Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes without primacy are used to support direct
implementation activities by EPA in those locations, for developmental grants, and for
"treatment in a similar manner as a state" (TAS) grants to Indian tribes to develop the PWSS
program on Indian lands with the goal of Tribal authorities achieving primacy.12
12 For more information see:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=cca066b833c552bdGc9ffDlle576c7f
765
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA will continue to support state and Tribal efforts to meet existing drinking water
standards through the PWSS grant program. The Agency will continue to emphasize that states
should use their PWSS funds to ensure that:
1) Drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance;
2) Drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting newer health-based standards and are
prepared for recent regulatory requirements (e.g., Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule or "LT2", Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule or
"Stage 2", and Ground Water Rule or "GWR" );
3) Data quality issues are identified and addressed; and
4) All systems are having sanitary surveys conducted according to the required schedule.
The states are the primary implementers of the national drinking water program and ensure that
the systems within their jurisdiction are in compliance with drinking water rules.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
89.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
* Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches including
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2009
Target
90
FY 2009
Actual
92.1
FY 2010
Target
90
FY2011
Target
91
Units
Perrent
-1 ^'Iv'^'llL
Population
*Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were impacted by the
receipt of ARRA funds. The impact to individual performance targets is detailed in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
766
-------
There is no separate measure for the PWSS grant program to the states, the performance
measures directly contribute to the PWSS grant program on the number of community water
systems that supply drinking water meeting all health-based standards.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
767
-------
Categorical Grant: Radon
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,370.4
$8,370.4
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes public action to reduce health risks from
indoor radon (second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer). EPA assists states and tribes
through technical support and the State Indoor Radon Grant Program (SIRG), which provides
categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs that assess and mitigate radon
risks. States and tribes are the primary implementers of radon testing and risk reduction
programs. This voluntary program promotes partnerships among national organizations, the
private sector, and state, local, and Tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk
reduction.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, states will:
• Continue to encourage risk reduction actions among consumers, homeowners, real
estate professionals, homebuilders, and local governments;
• Work with EPA to ensure that SIRG funds achieve the following results: homes
mitigated, homes built with radon resistant new construction, and schools mitigated or
built with radon resistant new construction; and
• Work with EPA to align performance measures.
The Indoor Air program is not regulatory. Instead, EPA works toward its goal by promoting
appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary education and outreach programs. The
Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements and plans to improve
transparency by making state radon grantee performance data available to the public via a
website or other easily accessible means.
768
-------
The State Indoor Radon Grants fund outreach and education programs in most states to reduce
the public health impact of radon, with an average award per state of $160,000 annually. EPA
targets this funding to support states with the greatest populations at highest risk. Grant dollars
are supplemented with technical support to transfer "best practices" from high-achieving states to
promote effective program implementation across the nation.
Performance Targets:
In FY 2011, EPA's performance targets are: 1) that 12.5 percent of single-family homes, above
EPA's action level, will have operating radon mitigation systems and 2) that 34.5 percent of
single family homes are built with mitigation ready systems in high radon potential areas. EPA
estimates that by meeting these targets, the program will prevent over 900 future premature
cancer deaths annually.
Performance measures associated with this program project are included in Radon Programs
under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; IRAA, Section 306; 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 Section 10.
769
-------
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$223,541.5
$223,541.5
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$226,580.0
$226,580.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$309,080.0
$309,080.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$82,500.0
$82,500.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes funding for multi-state, state, and local air pollution control agencies.
Section 103 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to award grants to a variety of
agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the air pollution control agencies funded from
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (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 Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to
award grants to state and local air pollution control agencies to develop and implement
continuing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and for the implementation of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set to protect public health and the
environment. The continuing programs, funded under section 105, include development and
operation of permitting programs, air quality monitoring networks, and a number of other air
program areas. Section 106 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to fund
interstate air pollution transport commissions to develop or carry out plans for designated air
quality control regions.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA issued air quality standards for a new pollutant, fine particulate matter, in the late 1990s.
Since that time, EPA has funded state and local fine particulate monitoring networks ($42.5
million) using the requirements of Section 103 of the Clean Air Act, as authorized in annual
appropriations bills. Section 103 provides full funding for pilot programs, demonstrations,
research, and other one-time activities. EPA will begin a phased, four-year program to
incorporate funding for fine particulate monitoring into the funding authorized by Section 105 of
the Clean Air Act for continuing state and local clean air programs. Section 105 requires state
and local agencies to provide matching funds of at least 40 percent of the amount required for the
entire continuing state or local clean air program.
In FY 2011, the Agency anticipates that states with approved or delegated permitting programs
will likely need additional resources to develop and apply the technical capacity to address
greenhouse gases in permitting large sources. Additional funding in FY 2011 will assist in
avoiding delays in evaluating and approving permits and will assist in advancing the
770
-------
Administration's climate and clean energy goals. Most states have well-established permitting
programs.
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) provide a blueprint for the programs and activities that states
carry out to achieve and maintain NAAQS, impacting all areas of a state's program. Although
there is no definite schedule for updating SIPs, there are a number of events that trigger SIP
updates. For example, when EPA promulgates a new NAAQS, states must update their SIPs
within three years. EPA's commitment to review each NAAQS according to the Clean Air Act
deadlines has led to several updated standards in the last two years. In FY 2011, EPA will work
with states to correct any deficiencies in their SIP submissions and provide technical assistance
in implementing their plans for the 8-hour ozone standard, the PM2.5 standard, the lead standard,
and regional haze.
The states, which are in a period of constrained budgets, are experiencing a vastly increased
workload in preparing SIPs due to: a) revised and more protective NAAQS (resulting in
additional nonattainment areas that states must address) and b) difficulties in planning effective
control strategies to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants. SIP preparation also is becoming
more complicated due to the regional nature of air pollution, which often may require Regional
air quality management strategies based on additional and more complex modeling, refined
emissions inventories, and increased stakeholder involvement. In addition, most large sources
already have been controlled and states must identify a broader range of new emission reduction
measures. States also are expecting to prepare new and more complicated planning strategies to
address greenhouse gases.
In October 2006, EPA revised the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for 24-hour
concentrations, making it more stringent. Due to recent court action, the Agency is reviewing
the annual standard, which was not revised in 2006. Although the final rule did not revise the air
monitoring network design criteria, a number of states voluntarily shifted monitoring equipment
to new locations to investigate possible problem areas with respect to the revised NAAQS. The
final rule also provided that there be a better balance of filter-based and continuous methods
employed to ensure more objectives would be served by each monitoring agency's network.
The October 2006 final PM2.5 NAAQS rule also established a new requirement for a multi-
pollutant monitoring site network (NCore), which must be operational by January 1, 2011. This
network will serve multiple objectives, such as supporting long-term trends of air pollution,
validating models, and providing input to health and atmospheric science studies. EPA has been
working closely with the states to implement this network and expects approximately 80 stations
across the nation. These stations will measure particles, including filter-based and continuous
mass for PM2.5, perform chemical speciation for PM2.5, and for the first time, measure PMio-2.5
mass. Stations also will measure gases, such as CO, SO2, NOx, and O^, and record basic
meteorology. Finally, as improved technologies for monitoring PM on a continuous basis are
commercialized and approved as official methods, states are expected to transition to wider use
of continuous methods in preference to older filter-based methods that have higher operating
costs.
In October 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the NAAQS for lead by revising the standards
to a level ten times tighter than the previous standards. To ensure protection under the revised
771
-------
NAAQS, EPA has been working with states to improve the lead monitoring network by
requiring monitors to be placed in areas with sources such as industrial facilities that emit one
ton or more of lead per year. This portion of the lead network, which comprises approximately
90 monitoring stations, started operations on January 1, 2010. EPA also has proposed additional
monitoring of lead at the approximately 80 NCore multi-pollutant monitoring stations and near
sources that emit over one-half ton of lead, which could include an additional 180 locations,
although the exact number will depend on the outcome of the rulemaking process and site by site
waiver reviews. If finalized, these two additional monitoring programs are expected to begin
operations in July 2011.
EPA has issued a proposal to reconsider the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would provide for an even
more protective ozone standard - one that is consistent with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee's advice to the Agency. Depending on the result of the Agency's reconsideration,
there could be additional ozone nonattainment areas, including many areas that have never been
classified as nonattainment and do not have any established ozone monitoring stations. In July
2009, EPA proposed new requirements for monitoring of ozone in smaller urban and non-urban
areas as well as extending the length of the required ozone monitoring season. Under a
reconsidered ozone standard, the Agency does not anticipate that the new monitoring
requirements will change, but does anticipate additional areas will be subject to the requirements.
The additional monitoring requirements may result in a substantial number of additional ozone
monitoring stations in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
EPA proposed revisions to the nitrogen dioxide (NC^) NAAQS in June 2009 and issued a final
rule in January 2010. Revisions to the NAAQS have substantial implications for monitoring,
including the deployment of new monitoring stations in locations not currently being monitored.
EPA is working closely with states on changes to the NC>2 monitoring design. EPA also
proposed a revised Sulfur Dioxide (862) primary NAAQS (published December 8, 2009). The
proposal includes 345 monitors, including 115 monitors at new stations. A final SC>2 rule is
expected by June 2, 2010.
This program also supports state and local characterization of air toxics problems and
implementation of measures to reduce health risks from air toxics. The characterization work
includes collection and analysis of emissions data and monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY
2011, funds for air toxic ambient monitoring also will support the National Air Toxics Trends
Stations (NATTS), consisting of 27 air toxics monitoring sites operated and maintained by state
and local air pollution control agencies across the country, and the associated quality assurance,
data analysis, and methods support. Finally, this program will support state efforts in
implementing Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards for major sources
and regulations to control emissions from area sources.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days with
Air Quality Index
FY 2009
Target
29
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
33
FY2011
Target
37
Units
Percent
772
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
(AQI) values over 100
since 2003, weighted
by population and AQI
value.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$45,000.0) This reflects an increase to support expanded core state workload for
implementing revised and more stringent NAAQS and reducing public exposure to air
toxics.
• (+$25,000.0) This reflects an increase to assist state and local agencies in developing
capacity to permit large sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The Agency will provide
information, guidance, training and outreach to agencies and sources.
• (+$15,000.0) This reflects an increase for additional state air monitors required by
revised NAAQS.
• (-$2,500.0) This reflects a decrease for the air toxics schools monitoring initiative to
reflect completion of air toxics monitoring and assessment activities.
Statutory Authority:
CAA, Sections 103, 105, and 106.
773
-------
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,276.9
$5,276.9
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$5,201.0
$5,201.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$102.0
$102.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Toxic Substances Compliance grants program builds environmental partnerships with states
and tribes to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health threats from
toxic substances such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and lead. State grants are
used to ensure compliance with standards for the proper use, storage, and disposal of PCBs.
Proper handling prevents persistent bio-accumulative toxic substances from contaminating food
and water. The asbestos funds ensure compliance with standards to prevent exposure of school
children, teachers, and staff to asbestos fibers in school buildings. The funds also support
compliance with other Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) asbestos regulations such as the
Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. The program assures that asbestos and lead abatement
workers have received proper training and certification to ensure protection during the abatement
process and minimize the public's exposure to these harmful toxic substances.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will continue to award
state and Tribal grants to assist in the implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions
of TSCA. These grants protect the public and the environment from PCBs, asbestos, and lead.
States receiving grants for the PCB program and for asbestos programs must contribute 25
percent of the total cost of the grant. EPA also plans to continue to incorporate technology such
as the use of portable personal computers and specific inspection software to improve
efficiencies of the inspection process and support state and Tribal inspection programs.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$102.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA
774
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,962.5
$13,962.5
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$13,566.0
$13,566.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$266.0
$266.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes funding for Tribal air pollution control agencies and/or tribes. Through
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 105 grants, tribes may develop and implement programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Through CAA section 103 grants, Tribal air
pollution control agencies or tribes, colleges, universities, or multi-tribe jurisdictional air
pollution control agencies and/or non-profit organizations may conduct and promote research,
investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to ambient or
indoor air pollution on Tribal lands.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Tribes will assess environmental and public health conditions on Tribal lands by developing
emission inventories and, where appropriate, siting and operating air quality monitors. Tribes
will continue to develop and implement air pollution control programs for their reservations,
acting "as states" to prevent and address air quality concerns. EPA will continue to fund
organizations for the purpose of providing technical support, tools, and training for Tribes to
build capacity to develop and implement programs, as appropriate, and will work to reduce the
number of days in violation of the Air Quality Index. This program supports the Agency's
priority of building strong Tribal partnerships.
Performance Targets:
There are no performance measures under this Program Project. However, work associated with
this Program Project supports the purpose and objectives of Federal Support for Air Quality
Management under Environmental Programs and Management.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$266.0) This reflects an increase to assist tribes in meeting inflation costs associated
with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority: CAA, Sections 103 and 105.
775
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$61,681.1
$61,681.1
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$71,375.0
$71,375.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$8,500.0
$8,500.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
In 1992, Congress established the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) to
provide a mechanism for Federal efforts to assist Tribal governments in assuring environmental
protection on Indian lands. The purpose of GAP is to support development of Tribal
environmental protection programs. See http://www.epa.gov/indian/laws3.htm for more
information.
GAP provides general assistance grants to build capacity to administer environmental regulatory
programs that may be authorized by EPA in Indian country and provides technical assistance in
the development of multimedia programs to address environmental issues on Indian lands. GAP
grants help build the basic components of a Tribal environmental program which may include
planning, developing, and establishing the administrative, technical, legal, enforcement,
communication and outreach infrastructure. Some uses of GAP funds include the following:
• Assess the status of a tribe's environmental condition;
• Develop appropriate environmental programs and ordinances;
• Conduct public education and outreach efforts to ensure that Tribal communities are
informed and able to participate in environmental decision-making; and
• Promote communication and coordination between Federal, state, local and Tribal
environmental officials.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, GAP grants will assist Tribal governments to build environmental capacity to assess
environmental conditions, utilize available Federal and other information, and build
environmental programs tailored to their needs. EPA is requesting additional resources for GAP
to help expand the number of tribes able to receive this baseline funding as well as provide a
higher level of support to GAP funding levels will help additional tribes develop environmental
programs and will sustain the ability of current recipients to maintain access to an environmental
776
-------
presence in Indian country. These grants also will be used to develop environmental education
and outreach programs, develop and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and
alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and ecological threats.
EPA successfully implemented the inaugural run of a database system called the Tribal Program
Management System (TPMS) to help standardize, centralize, and integrate regional data, and
assign accountability for data quality. In FY 2011, EPA will continue working to enhance and
integrate the GAP Online workplan development and reporting system for improved data
management and access to grant information. This new electronic system, in conjunction with
the updated guidance, helps emphasize outcome-based results.
An independent program evaluation of the GAP program was conducted to determine GAP's
effectiveness in building Tribal environmental capacity. The reports concluded that GAP is
successful in building a foundation of environmental capacity among tribes, as defined as
capability in one or more of five indicator areas - technical, legal, enforcement, administrative
and communications. Although the extent of capacity building varies across indicator areas for
tribes, GAP funding is essential for tribes to achieve their environmental goals. See "Evaluation
of the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP)" http://intranet.epa.gov/Program
Evaluation_Library/pdfs/GAPFinalReport.pdf for more information.
The Inspectors General of EPA and the Department of Interior jointly released a report in May
2007, "Tribal Successes, Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resources," which highlights
successful environmental protection practices by tribes. EPA's Tribal activities were positively
viewed in this report. EPA will continue efforts to further assist tribes in establishing
environmental protection through collaboration, partnerships and other practices that lead to
Tribal success. See "Tribal Success, Protecting the Environment and Natural Resources":
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070503-2007-P-00022JT.pdffor more information.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes with
an environmental
program (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
60
FY 2009
Actual
64
FY 2010
Target
65
FY2011
Target
67
Units
Percent
Tribes
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes
conducting EPA
approved
environmental
monitoring and
assessment activities in
Indian country
(cumulative.)
FY 2009
Target
23
FY 2009
Actual
40
FY 2010
Target
42
FY2011
Target
45
Units
Percent
Tribes
777
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes
implementing federal
regulatory
environmental
programs in Indian
country (cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
7
FY 2009
Actual
12.6
FY 2010
Target
14
FY2011
Target
18
Units
Percent
Tribes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of
environmental
programs implemented
in Indian Country per
million dollars.
FY 2009
Target
14.2
FY 2009
Actual
Data
Avail
6/2010
FY 2010
Target
14.2
FY2011
Target
14.2
Units
Programs
The efficiency measure for the GAP program, "Number of environmental programs implemented
in Indian country per million dollars" reflects environmental program implementation in Indian
country in relation to the level of dollars available to tribes under the EPA program statutorily
targeted to this objective. It is expressed as a ratio between environmental programs
implemented and million dollars of GAP funding available to tribes.
• In FY 2011, EPA will operate at an efficiency of approximately 14.2 programs per
million dollars.
• In FY 2011, all federally-recognized tribes and intertribal consortia, a universe of 574
eligible entities, will have access to an environmental presence.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$8,500.0) This will allow the Agency to increase the base funding available for GAP
grants, providing tribes with a stronger foundation to build Tribal capacity and implement
other related efforts, continuing EPA's partnership and collaboration with the tribes. GAP
funds are a key means by which tribes leverage other EPA and federal funding to
contribute towards a higher overall level of environmental and public health protection
per dollar invested. Many tribes have expressed the need to start implementing high-
priority environmental programs. By increasing GAP grant funding, the Agency is
encouraging a stronger environmental program base, and therefore allowing more tribes
to take advantage of the new multi-media implementation program starting in FY 2011.
Statutory Authority:
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
778
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$11,332.4
$11,332.4
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$11,109.0
$11,109.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$218.0
$218.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) grant program is implemented by Federal and state
government agencies that oversee underground injection activities in order to prevent
contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Traditional underground injection is
the disposal of fluids beneath the earth's surface in porous rock formations through wells or
other similar conveyance systems. Billions of gallons of fluids are injected underground,
including the majority of hazardous wastewater that is land disposed; and underground injection
is now being considered for long-term storage of carbon dioxide (CO2).
When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective
method of managing fluids. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established the UIC
program to provide safeguards so that injection wells do not endanger current and future
underground sources of drinking water. The most accessible underground fresh water is stored
in shallow geological formations (i.e., shallow aquifers) and is the most vulnerable to
contamination.
EPA provides financial assistance in the form of grants to states and tribes that have primary
enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and manage UIC programs. Eligible Indian tribes
who demonstrate intent to achieve primacy also may receive grants for the initial development of
UIC programs and be designated for treatment as a "state" if their programs are approved.
Where a jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to assume primacy, EPA uses grant funds for direct
implementation of Federal UIC requirements. EPA directly implements programs in ten states
and shares responsibility in seven states. EPA also administers the UIC programs for all but two
tribes.13
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html for more information.)
(https://www. cfda.gov/index? S=program&mode=fonn&tab=stepl&id=cl307f57fe8bec34fla65660eff495a8&cck=l&au=&ck=
for more information.)
779
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Ensuring safe underground injection of fluids, including waste-fluids, is a fundamental
component of a comprehensive source water protection program that, in turn, is a key element in
the Agency's multi-barrier approach. The UIC program continues to manage or close the
approximately 700 thousand shallow injection wells (Class V) to protect our ground water
resources.
Geological Sequestration (GS) is the process of injecting CC>2 captured from an emission source
(e.g., a power plant or industrial facility) into deep, subsurface rock formations for long-term
storage. It is part of a process known as "carbon capture and storage," or CCS. EPA's UIC
program regulates underground injection of CO2 and other fluids under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In July 2008, EPA proposed a rule which would establish a new
class of underground injection well—Class VI— with new Federal requirements to allow the
injection of CC>2 for the purpose of GS. The proposal builds on, and tailors, existing UIC
regulatory components including sitting, construction, operation, monitoring and testing, and
closure for injection wells that address the pathways, such as unplugged wells through which
USDWs may be endangered. In addition to protecting USDWs, the proposed rule would provide
a regulatory framework to implement a consistent approach to permitting GS projects across the
U.S and supports the development of a potentially key climate change mitigation technology.
In FY 2011, states and EPA (where EPA directly implements) will continue to carry out
regulatory functions for all types of wells. States and EPA also will continue to process UIC
permit applications for experimental carbon sequestration projects. The information gathered
from these pilots will help the Agency and states to provide permits to large-scale commercial
carbon sequestration applications following finalization of the GS regulation. Similarly, states
and EPA will process UIC permits for other nontraditional injection streams such as desalination
brines and treated waters injected for storage and recovered at a later time.
The program is working to develop an annual performance measure and efficiency measure to
demonstrate the protection of source water quality. EPA has developed annual measures for the
UIC program that support the long-term targets. These measures are indicators of the
effectiveness of the UIC program in preventing contamination of underground sources of
drinking water and protecting public health. These measures demonstrate how the UIC program
is helping to reduce risks to underground sources of drinking water and protect public health.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of identified
Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells
and other high priority
Class V wells closed or
permitted.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
76
Units
Percent
Wells
780
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of deep
injection wells that are
used to inject
industrial, municipal,
or hazardous
waste(Class I) that lose
mechanical integrity
and are returned to
compliance within 180
days thereby reducing
the potential to
endanger underground
sources of drinking
water.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
92
FY2011
Target
92
Units
Percent
Wells
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of deep
injection wells that are
used to enhance
oil/natural gas recovery
or for the injection of
other (Class II) fluids
associated with oil and
natural gas production
that have lost
mechanical integrity
and are returned to
compliance within 180
days thereby reducing
the potential to
endanger underground
sources of drinking
water.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
89
FY2011
Target
89
Units
Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Wells
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of deep
injection wells that are
used for salt solution
mining (Class III) that
lose mechanical
integrity and are
returned to compliance
within 180 days
thereby reducing the
potential to endanger
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
93
FY2011
Target
93
Units
Percent
Wells
781
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
underground sources of
drinking water.
FY 2009
Target
FY 2009
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY2011
Target
Units
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$218.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
782
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,549.5
$4,549.5
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$2,550.0
$2,550.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$50.0
$50.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) expanded the eligible use of LUST funds to include
certain release prevention/detection activities, but it did not authorize LUST funds for all
prevention/detection activities. Thus, some states still need STAG money to fund some basic
programmatic functions for Underground Storage Tank (UST) release prevention and detection
programs. EPA recognizes that the size and diversity of the regulated community puts state
authorities in a good position to regulate USTs and to set priorities. In furtherance of that goal,
EPA provides funding to states under the authority of Section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), through Performance Partnership Agreements and through the UST
categorical grants for release detection and release prevention activities to encourage owners and
operators to properly operate and maintain their USTs. For more information, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
EPA will continue to make grants to states under Section 2007 of the SWDA to support core
program activities as well as some EPAct leak prevention activities. Major activities for these
UST categorical grants focus on developing and maintaining state programs with sufficient
authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal program, and ensuring
that owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in
accordance with UST regulations.14 EPA also will assist the states in implementing the EPAct
provisions such as conducting on-site inspections on the three-year cycle, and prohibiting
delivery to noncompliant tanks.
At the end of FY 2009, there were approximately 612,000 active USTs at approximately 223,000
sites that are regulated by the UST technical regulations under Subtitle I of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These regulations seek to ensure that USTs are
designed and operated in a manner that prevents the tanks from leaking, and when leaks do
occur, to detect and clean up those leaks as soon as possible. EPA provides funding to states,
regulates these programs, develops guidelines, and provides technical assistance to develop state
capacity to encourage owners and operators to properly operate and maintain their underground
storage tanks.
14 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/title42ch82-IX12-08.pdf.
783
-------
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2011, the program's focus will continue to be on the need to bring all UST systems into
compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements, and implement the
provisions of EPAct. States will continue to use the UST categorical grant funding to implement
their leak prevention and detection programs.15 Specifically with these UST categorical grants,
states will fund such activities as:
• 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;
• Implementing operator training;
• Prohibiting delivery for non-complying facilities;
• Seeking state program approval to operate the UST program in lieu of the Federal
program; and
• Requiring secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and
installers.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Minimize the number
of confirmed releases
at UST facilities to
9,000 or fewer each
year.
FY 2009
Target
<9,000
FY 2009
Actual
7,168
FY 2010
Target
<9,000
FY2011
Target
<9,000
Units
UST
Releases
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$50.0) This reflects an increase to assist states in meeting inflation costs associated
with state program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(Subtitle I), Section 2007(f), 42 U.S.C. 6916(f)(2); EPAct of 2005, Title XV - Ethanol And
Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Sections 1521 - 1533, P.L.
109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801.
' For more information on grant guidelines under EPAct see: http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/epact_05.htm.
784
-------
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$15,345.1
$15,345.1
0.0
FY2010
Enacted
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$17,167.0
$17,167.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2010 Enacted
$337.0
$337.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) enable EPA to provide technical and
financial support to assist states, tribes, and local governments toward the national goal of an
overall increase in the acreage and condition of wetlands. Grants are used to develop new or
refine existing state and Tribal wetland programs in one or more of the following areas:
monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, regulatory programs including
401 certification, and wetland water quality standards. States and tribes develop program
elements based on their goals and resources. Grants support development of state and Tribal
wetland programs that further the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and improve water quality in
watersheds throughout the country. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis under the authority of
Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/tffmancial or
https://www.cfda.gov for more information.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Strong state and Tribal wetland programs are an essential complement to the Federal CWA
Section 404 regulatory program. The WPDGs are EPA's primary resource for supporting state
and Tribal wetland program development. Resources in FY 2011 will assist states and tribes to
develop and enhance any of four core elements of a comprehensive program: monitoring and
assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, regulatory programs including 401
certification, and wetland water quality standards. Through these program elements, states and
tribes can begin to assess wetland location and condition, document stresses or improvements to
wetland condition, provide incentives for wetland restoration and protection, and develop
regulatory controls to avoid, minimize, and compensate for wetland impacts. For further
information on the core elements of a state/Tribal wetland program please see: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/wetlands/imtiative/estp.html.
The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report released by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service reports the quantity and type of wetlands in the conterminous United States.
The report shows that while some wetland types are increasing in acreage, many categories of
wetlands continue to decline, particularly coastal freshwater wetlands. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service expects to release another report in calendar year 2011.
785
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of acres
restored and improved,
under the 5-Star,NEP,
319, and great
waterbody programs
(cumulative).
FY 2009
Target
88,000
FY 2009
Actual
103,507
FY 2010
Target
110,000
FY2011
Target
118,000
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
In partnership with the
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, states, and
tribes, achieve no net
loss of wetlands each
year under the Clean
Water Act Section 404
regulatory program.
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2009
Actual
No Net
Loss
FY 2010
Target
No Net
Loss
FY2011
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Acres
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$337.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
associated with state and Tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; CWA;
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act of 2000; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; WRDA; 1909 The Boundary Waters
Treaty; 1978 GLWQA; 1987 GLWQA; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes
Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
786
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY 788
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 788
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 795
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 804
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 809
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 825
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS 830
PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 833
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 842
787
-------
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by
enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
Objective - 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air: Through 2014, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Criteria
Pollutants and
Regional Haze
Performance Measures
(PM M9) Cumulative percent reduction in population-
weighted ambient concentration of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
8
Actual
9
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
11
FY 2011
Target
12
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored counties, weighted by
the populations in those areas. To calculate the weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are multiplied by the associated county populations. The units for
this measure are therefore, "million people parts per billion." The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
(PMM91) Cumulative percent reduction in population-
weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate
matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
4
13
5
Data Avail
2010
6
6
Percent
Additional Information: The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter
PM2.5 pollution across all monitored counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate this weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are
multiplied by the associated county populations. Therefore, the units for this measure are "million people micrograms per cubic meter" (million people ug/m3.). The 2003
baseline is 2,581 people micograms per cubic meter.
(PMM92) Cumulative percent reduction in the number
of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100
since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
25
52
29
Data Avail
2010
33
37
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero.
(PMM94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within
one year of receiving a complete permit application.
78
79
78
Data Avail
2010
78
78
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 61 percent.
788
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PMM95) Percent of significant Title V operating
permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a
complete permit application.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
97
Actual
85
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 100 percent.
(PMM96) Percent of new Title V operating permits
issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit
application.
91
72
95
Data Avail
2010
99
99
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 75 percent.
(PMMM9) Cumulative percent reduction in the average
number of days during the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted
by population.
19
37
23
Data Avail
2010
26
29
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero.
(PMN35) Limit the increase of CO emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources compared to a 2000 baseline.
1.35M
1.35M
1.52M
Data Avail
2010
1.69M
1.86M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for CO from mobile sources was 79.2M.
(PMO33) Millions of Tons of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) Reduced since 2000 from Mobile
Sources
1.37M
1.37M
1.54M
Data Avail
2010
1.71 M
1.88M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for VOC emissions from mobile sources is
V.TMtons.
(PMO34) Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Reduced since 2000 Reduced from Mobile Sources
2.71 M
2.71 M
3.05 M
Data Avail
2010
3.39 M
3.73 M
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for NOx emissions from mobile sources is
ll.SMtons.
(PMP33) Tons of PM-10 Reduced since 2000 from
Mobile Sources
99,458
99,458
111,890
Data Avail
2010
124,322
136,755
Tons
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 emissions from mobile sources is
61 3,000 tons.
(PMP34) Tons of PM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from
97,947
97,497
110,190
Data Avail
122,434
134,677
Tons
789
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Reduce Air
Toxics
(3) Reduce the
Adverse
Effects of
Acid
Deposition
Performance Measures
Mobile Sources
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
2010
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 emissions from mobile sources is
510,552 tons.
(PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
35
Data Avail
2011
36
Data Avail
2011
36
35
Percent
Additional Information: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NET) for air toxics along with the Agency's
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline, developed in 1993, is
7.24 million tons. This value represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted
emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years.
Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. An example would be, when the 2008 inventory is
completed in 201 1, interpolations for 2009 and 2010 will then become available. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or
total tons of air toxics) may also be adjusted.
(PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
59
Data Avail
2011
59
Data Avail
2011
59
59
Percent
Additional Information: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will also utilize the National Emissions Inventory (NET) for air toxics along with the Agency's
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline, developed in 1 993, is
7.24 million tons. This value represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted
emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years.
Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models. An example would be, when the 2008 inventory is
completed in 201 1, interpolations for 2009 and 2010 will then become available. As new inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or
total tons of air toxics) may also be adjusted.
(PMA01) Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from electric
power generation sources
8,000,000
9,800,000
8,000,000
Data Avail
2010
8,450,000
8,450,000
Tons Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline year is 1 980. The 1 980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 1 7.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was developed by
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and is used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments. This data is also contained
in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons
below 1980 emissions level. "Allowable SO2 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under several provisions of the Act and
additional allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years.
Objective - 2 - Healthier Indoor Air: Through 2014, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air
contaminants through the promotion of voluntary actions by the public.
790
-------
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Exposure to
Radon
(2) Reduce
Exposure to
Asthma
Triggers
(3) Reduce
Exposure to
Indoor Air
Contaminants
in Schools
Performance Measures
(PM R50) Cumulative number of existing homes with
an operating mitigation system (HOMS) compared to
the estimated number of homes at or above EPA's
4pCi/L action level.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
11.1
Actual
11.0
FY 2009
Target
11.5
Actual
12.0
FY 2010
Target
12.0
FY 2011
Target
12.5
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The 2003 baseline is 6.9 percent.
(PMR51) Total number of all new single-family homes
(SFH) built in high radon potential areas (zone 1 )
compared to new homes in zone 1 built with mitigation-
ready systems (radon-reducing features).
30.0
31.0
31.5
Data Avail
2010
33.0
34.5
Percent
Additional Information: The 2003 baseline is 21 percent.
(PMR16) Percent of public that is aware of the asthma
program's media campaign.
>20
Data Not
Avail
>20
No Data
Avail
>30
>30
Percent
Additional Information: Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign. No new advertising was launched in 2007 or 2008.
(PMR1 7) Additional health care professionals trained
annually by EPA and its partner on the environmental
management of asthma triggers.
2,000
4,558
2,000
4,614
2,000
2,000
Professionals
Additional Information: In the 20003 baseline year, 2,360 health care professionals were trained.
(PMR22) Estimated annual number of schools
establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's
Tools for Schools guidance.
1,100
1,614
1,000
2,062
1,000
1,000
Schools
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 3,200.
Objective - 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer: Through 2014, continue efforts to restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public
from the harmful effects of UV radiation.
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Unit
791
-------
(2) Reduce
Emissions of
Ozone-
Depleting
Substances
(PM SOI) Remaining US Consumption of Class II ODS,
measured in tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
Target
<9,900
Actual
5,667
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data Avail
2010
<3,811
<3,811
ODP tons
Additional Information: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs as set by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is its ozone-
depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic OOP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the
OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export. The 1989 HCFC baseline for the U.S. was 15,240 ODP.
Objective - 4 - Radiation: Through 2014, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize
impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Monitor
the
Environment
for Radiation
(2) Prepare for
and Respond
to
Radiological
Emergencies
Performance Measures
(PM R34) Percentage of most populous US cities with a
RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system, which
will provide data to assist in protective action
determinations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
85
Actual
92
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
95
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline is 55 percent for most populous cities.
(PMR36) Average time before availability of quality
assured ambient radiation air monitoring data during an
emergency.
1.0
0.80
0.8
Data Avail
2010
0.7
0.7
Days
Additional Information: The baseline is 2.5 days for average time before availability of quality assured air monitoring data during an emergency.
(PMR37) Time to approve site changes affecting waste
characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure
safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP.
46
50
53
Data Avail
2010
53
53
Days
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is zero.
(PMR35) Level of readiness of radiation program
personnel and assets to support federal radiological
emergency response and recovery operations.
85
87
90
Data Avail
2010
90
90
Days
Additional Information: The baseline for the emergency response program readiness was 50 percent.
(PMR39) Level of readiness of national environmental
radiological laboratory capacity (measured as percentage
of laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for
35
37
50
Data Avail
2010
60
70
Percent
792
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
emergency response and recovery decisions.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is zero.
Objective - 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Through 2014, continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary climate
protection programs that accelerate the adoption of cost-effective greenhouse gas reducing technologies and practices.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Performance Measures
(PM G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings
sector.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
32.4
Actual
38.4
FY 2009
Target
35.5
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
39.0
FY 2011
Target
42.2
Unit
MMTCE
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
(PMG06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
1.5
1.60
2.6
Data Avail
2010
4.3
7.2
MMTCE
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
(PMG16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the industry
sector.
67.7
79.0
72.9
Data Avail
2010
82.9
92.8
MMCTE
793
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate change
programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar baseline forecasts
developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming
potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update.
Objective - 6 - Enhance Science and Research: Through 2014, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Clean Air
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H05) Percentage of Clean Air publications rated as
highly cited publications.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
33.9
Actual
34.1
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
34.9
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors. Note that prior to FY 2007 the data points for this measure were derived using a bibliometric analysis
methodology that evaluated publications produced on a yearly basis, rather than produced in a ten-year window. In F Y 2006, ORE) and OMB agreed to 1 ) use a ten-year
window as a consistent methodology across ORD and 2) assess the measure biannually.
(PMH35) Percent planned actions accomplished toward
the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science
that supports standard setting and air quality
management decisions. (Research)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Beginning in FY 2008, this measure will track the program's success in completing its planned outputs on time. Prior to FY 2008, the measure
tracked success in completing both planned outputs and planned actions in response to independent review recommendations.
794
-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
Objective - 1 - Protect Human Health: Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting
source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Water Safe
to Drink
Performance Measures
(PM E) Percent of the population in Indian country
served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
87
Actual
83
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
81.2
FY 2010
Target
87
FY 2011
Target
87
Unit
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 86 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards.
(PMaa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards through approaches
including effective treatment & source water protection.
90
92
90
92.1
90*
91*
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 89 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards.
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMapc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
86
90
89
92
86*
89*
Rate
Additional Information: In 2005, the fund utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was 85 percent. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMapd) Number of additional projects initiating
operations.
440
445
445
480
450
* ARRA: 100
500
* ARRA: 200
Projects
Additional Information: In 2005, 2,61 1 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund projects initiated operations, (cumulative) *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
(PMaph) Percent of community water systems that have
undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding performance.)
95
87
95
QQ
00
95
95
Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 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.
(PMapi) Percent of identified Class V motor vehicle
76
Percent Wells
795
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
waste disposal wells and other high priority Class V
wells closed or permitted.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: "Sensitive ground water protection areas" are defined by the UIC primacy program director, but at a minimum must include groundwater-based
community water system source water areas. In 2005, 72 percent Class V wells were closed or permitted.
(PMapm) Percent of community water systems that
meet all applicable health-based standards through
approaches that include effective treatment and source
water protection.
89.5
89
90
89.1
90
90
Percent Systems
Additional Information: In 2005, 89 percent of community water systems meet all applicable health based drinking water standards.
(PMapn) Percent of data for violations of health-based
standards at public water systems that are accurate and
complete in SDWIS/FED for all MCL and TT rules.
90
Percent data
Additional Information: In 2003, 65 percent of data for violations of health based standards at public water systems that are accurate and complete in SDWIS/FED for all
MCL and TT rules.
(PMapo) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to
inject industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I)
that lose mechanical integrity and are returned to
compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the
potential to endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
92
92
Percent Wells
Additional Information: In 2009, 1 00 percent of Class I wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMapp) Percent of deep injection wells that are used to
enhance oil/natural gas recovery or for the injection of
other (Class II) fluids associated with oil and natural gas
production that have lost mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources
of drinking water.
89
89
Percent Wells
Additional Information: In 2009, 90 percent of Class II wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMapq) Percent of deep injection wells that are used
for salt solution mining (Class III) that lose mechanical
integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days
thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
93
93
Percent Wells
796
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Fish and
Shellfish Safe
to Eat
(3) Water Safe
for Swimming
Performance Measures
sources of drinking water.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2009, 1 00 percent of Class III wells that lost mechanical integrity were returned to compliance within 1 80 days.
(PMdw2) Percent of person months during which
community water systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based standards.
95
97
95
97.2
95
95
Percent Months
Additional Information: In 2005, community water systems provided drinking water that met all applicable health based drinking water standards during 95 percent of
"person months."
(PMdw4) Percent of community water systems for
which minimized risk to public health through source
water protection is achieved.
30
32
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
50
Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 2005, 20 percent of community water systems had minimized risk to public health through source water protection.
(PMdwS) Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking
access to safe drinking water.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
8
Households
Additional Information: In 2005, 1 1 percent of homes on tribal lands lacked access to safe drinking water.
(PMfsl) Percent of women of childbearing age having
mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
5.5
Data Avail
2013
5.2
Data Avail
2013
5.1
4.9
Percent Women
Additional Information: Baseline is 5.7 percent published by CDC in 2005 (based on data collected in 2002-3) Universe is population of women of childbearing age.
(PMssl) Number of waterborne disease outbreaks
attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact
with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-
year average.
2
0
2
Data Avail
2012
2
2
Outbreaks
Additional Information: Very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this measure. In 2005, two
waterborne diseases were reported. Universe is not applicable to this baseline.
(PM ss2) Percent of days of beach season that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach
safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
92.6
95
93
95
95
95
Percent Days/Season
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open 96 percent of the 743,036 days of the beach season (i.e., beach season days are equal to 4,025 beaches multiplied by
variable number of days of beach season at each beach).
797
-------
Objective - 2 - Protect Water Quality: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean
waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Improve
Water Quality
on a
Watershed
Basis
Performance Measures
(PM L) Number of waterbody segments identified by
States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water
quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1,550
Actual
2,165
FY 2009
Target
2,270
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809*
FY 2011
Target
2,910*
Unit
Segments
Additional Information: 2002 baseline: 39,798 water bodies identified by states and tribes as not meeting water quality standards. Water bodies where mercury is among
multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this target when all pollutants but mercury attain standards, but must be identified as still needing
restoration for mercury; 1 ,703 impaired water bodies are impaired by multiple pollutants including mercury, and 6,501 are impaired by mercury alone. *The program
which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMbpa) CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level
($billions/yr)
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
3.4
Dollars (billion)/Year
Additional Information: In 2001, $3.9 billion of Clean Water SRF dollars were at the long term revolving level.
(PMbpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
93.5
98
94.5
98
92*
94*
Percent Rate
Additional Information: In 2002 and 9 1 percent is used as the baseline for this measure. It was calculated using data collected annually from all 5 1 state CWSRF programs
(50 states and Puerto Rico). *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from
base funding plus ARRA.
(PMbpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted
wastewater discharge standards
86
86
86
Data Avail
5/2010
86*
86*
Percent POTWs
Additional Information: The most recent baseline is 2005, at 86 percent. It is calculated by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) using data
collected in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) on major publicly-owned treatment works. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of
pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
4.5
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 558,000 Ibs of]
(PMbpg) Estimated additional reduction in million
pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
8.5
3.50
4.5
Data Avail
2010
4.5
4.5
Pounds (million)
shosphorus from nonpoint sources.
11.30
8.5
Data Avail
2010
8.5
8.5
Pounds (million)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 3.7 million Ibs of nitrogen from nonpoint sources.
798
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PMbph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of
tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only)
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
700,000
Actual
2,100,000
FY 2009
Target
700,000
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
700,000
FY 2011
Target
700,000
Unit
Tons (thousand)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 1 .68 million tons of sediment from nonpoint sources.
(PM bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by
States and approved by EPA [State TMDL] on schedule
consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A TMDL
is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved"
and "established" refer to the completion and approval
of the TMDL itself]
28,527
30,658
33,540
36,487
39,101
41,611
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, more than 30,000 state TMDLs were completed through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PMbpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits
that are issued in the fiscal year.
95
120
95
147
95
95
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states as environmentally or programmatically significant. The
annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2005, 104 percent of the designated priority
permits were issued in the fiscal year.
(PMbpn) Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal
year.
22.5
23.90
22.5
Data Avail
2010
22.5
22.5f
Percent Dischargers
Additional Information: The universe consists of all major NPDES permitted facilities. The data is pulled from PCS and ICIS databases. The SNC rates are calculated on a
three year rolling average and reflect the percentage of majors that have been in SNC for one or more quarters within the particular fiscal year. In 2005, 19.7 percent of
major facilities were in Significant Noncompliance.
f EPA is directing additional attention to Clean Water Act enforcement in FY201 1 to target pollutant sources posing the biggest threats to water quality while intensifying
vigorous civil and criminal enforcement against traditional end-of-pipe pollution. We are also in the process of redesigning our enforcement approach that will look
beyond majors to other important sources. As we consider a broader range of sources, the definition of SNC may change which may change our measures and targets
accordingly.
(PMbpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised
water quality standards from States and Territories that
are approved by EPA.
87
92.5
85
93.2
85
85
Percent Submissions
799
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 87.6 percent submissions approved.
(PM bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or
approved by EPA [Total TMDL] on a schedule
consistent with national policy (cummulative). [A
TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms
"approved" and "established" refer to the completion
and approval of the TMDL itself]
33,801
35,979
38,978
41,866
44,560
47,100
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, EPA and states completed more than 35,000 total TMDLs through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PMbpt) Percent of waters assessed using statistically
valid surveys.
65
65
65
65
82
100
Percent Waters
Additional Information: In 2000, 3 1 percent of waters were assessed using statistically valid surveys.
(PMbpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES
permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal
year.
95
119
95
144
95
95
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states or EPA regions as environmentally or programmatically
significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2008, 119 percent of the
designated priority permits were issued in the fiscal year.
(PM bpw) Percent of States and Territories that, within
the preceding 3-year period, submitted new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or sources not
considered in previous standards.
68
62.5
68
62.5
66
64.3
Percent States and
Territories
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 70 percent of states and territories submitting acceptable water quality criteria reflecting new scientific information.
(PMwq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody
impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
4,607
6,723
6,891
7,530
8,512
8,670
Causes
Additional Information: In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states.
(PMwq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired
watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach
(cumulative).
40
60
102
104
141
170
Watersheds
Additional Information: In 2002, there were 1 0 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watershed of focus having 1 or more water bodies impaired. The
800
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Improve
Coastal and
Ocean Water
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
watershed boundaries for this measure are those established at the "12 digit" scale by the U.S. Geological Survey. Watersheds at this scale average 22 square miles in size.
"Improved" means that that one or more of the impairment causes identified in 2002 are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired water bodies or impaired
miles/acres, or there is significant watershed- wide improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more water quality parameters associated with
the impairments.
(PMwq6) Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking
access to basic sanitation.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
6
Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2005, 6.64 percent of homes on tribal lands lacked access to basic sanitation.
(PMGpa) Percent of Alaska population served by
public water systems in compliance with Safe Drinking
Water Act regulatory requirements.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
100
Households
Additional Information: In 2005, 96 percent of the Alaska population served by public water systems were in compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory
requirements.
(PMOpb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking water supply and wastewater
disposal.
94
91
96
Data Avail
5/2010
98
96
Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
(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).
95
99
98
99
98
95
Percent Sites
Additional Information: The baseline was calculated in 2005 at 60 sites.
Objective - 3 - Enhance Science and Research: By 2014, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human
health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the
protection of aquatic ecosystems-specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Drinking
Performance Measures
(PM 134) Percentage of planned risk management
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
93
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
801
-------
Sub-
Objective
Water
Research
(2) Water
Quality
Research
Performance Measures
research products delivered to support EPA's Office of
Water, Regions, water utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage public health risk.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1, which supports the Office of Water
(OW) in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk management decisions. ORD's work under this goal also supports OW,
regions, states, utilities, and key stakeholders in protecting sources of drinking water, managing water availability, improving water infrastructure sustainability, increasing
water and energy use efficiency, and responding to short and long-term water resource impacts of environmental stressors such as climate change, population growth and
land use changes.
(PMI35) Percentage of planned methodologies, data,
and tools delivered in support of EPA's Office of Water
and other key stakeholders needs for developing health
risk assessments under the SDWA.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1 , which primarily supports the Office of
Water in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), regulating/not regulating contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the
six year review, and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. ORD's work under this goal also supports regions and key stakeholders in meeting simultaneous
compliance requirements while also aiding risk assessors in developing risk assessments that inform regulatory decisions.
(PMH66) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH68) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered
100
100
100
86
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH70) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
802
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
(PMH92) Percentage of WQRP publications in high
impact journals.
14.7
13.8
No Target
Established
Biennial
15.7
No Target
Established
Percent
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PMH96) Percentage of WQRP publications rated as
highly cited publications.
15.7
15.2
No Target
Established
Biennial
16.7
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews. To best establish ambitious and appropriate targets in the future, ORD will collect benchmarking information by conducting an analysis of
bibliometric measures
803
-------
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases
of harmful substances.
Objective -1 - Preserve Land: By 2014, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper
management of waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Waste
Generation
and Recycling
(2) Hazardous
Waste and
Petroleum
Products
Performance Measures
(PM MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion
ash that is used instead of disposed.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Actual
1.8
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1.4
FY 2011
Target
1.4
Unit
Percentage Increase
Additional Information: In 2008, approximately 136 million tons of coal combustion ash was generated, and 44. 5 percent was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-
year data lag in reporting results.
(PMMW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded
open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands.
30
166
27
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for re
(PMMW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated
solid waste management plan.
26
35
16
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for re]
(PMMW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste
reduced, reused, or recycled.
19.5
129
22
22
Open Dumps
sorting identified in 2006.
31
23
22
Tribes
sorting identified in 2006.
Data Avail
10/2010
20.5
21
Billion Pounds
Additional Information: This municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
(PMHWO) Number of hazardous waste facilities with
new or updated controls.
100
115
100
100
Facilities
Additional Information: There are an estimated 894 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,450 facilities.
(PMST1) Minimize the number of confirmed releases at
UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year.
<10,000
7,364
<9,000
7,168
<9,000
<9,000
UST Releases
Additional Information: Between FY 1999 and FY 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2009 was 7,168.
(PMST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that
are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with
both release detection and release prevention
requirements by 0.5 percent over the previous year's
68
66
65
66.4
65.5
66
Percent
804
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
target.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Implementing the 2005 Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA and states are inspecting infrequently inspected facilities, and are finding many out
of compliance, impacting our ability to achieve compliance rate goals. As a result, the significant operational compliance targets have been adjusted to reflect a 0.5 percent
increase each year to maintain aggressive goals.
Objective - 2 - Restore Land: By 2014, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact of accidental or
intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to appropriate levels.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Chemical
Release
Preparedness
and Response
(2)
Contaminated
Performance Measures
(PM 132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed
annually.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
195
Actual
215
FY 2009
Target
195
Actual
214
FY 2010
Target
170
FY 2011
Target
170
Unit
Removals
Additional Information: Between 2002 and 2009 EPA completed an average of 203 Superfund-lead removal response actions. The Target reductions for FY 2010 and FY
201 1 are due to an increased emphasis on PRP-lead removal actions.
(PM 135) PRP removal completions (including
voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
170
170
Removals
Additional Information: In FY 2010, EPA will begin implementing a new measure to track removals undertaken by potentially responsible parties, either voluntarily or
pursuant to an enforcement instrument, where EPA has overseen the removals.
(PM337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
15
30
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PM338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
15
30
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PMC1) Score on annual Core NAR.
55
60
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PM112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
13,000
12,768
12,250
12,944
12,250*
12,250*
Cleanups
805
-------
Sub-
Objective
Land
Performance Measures
ground-water migration.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 388,33 1 leaking underground storage tank cleanups. *The program which this measure
supports received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
ground-water migration in Indian Country.
30
40
30
49
30
30
Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 848 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian country. This is a subset of the
national total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups completed.
(PM 121) Superfund final site assessment decisions
completed.
400
415
400
400
330
325
Assessments
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, there were a cumulative total of 40,558 Superfund final assessment decisions made at potentially hazardous sites.
(PM 141) Annual number of Superfund sites with
remedy construction completed.
30
30
20
20
22*
25*
Completions
Additional Information: Through F Y 2009, Superfund had completed construction at 1 ,080 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human
exposures under control.
10
24
10
11
10*
10*
Sites
Additional Information: Through F Y 2009, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 1 ,320 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 152) Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
15
20
15
16
15
15
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 1 ,012 final and deleted NPL sites.
(PM 162) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites
where all remedies have completed construction.
60
61
64
65
68
70
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA had completed construction at 65 Federal facility Superfund sites.
(PM 163) Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites
where the final remedial decision for contaminants at the
site has been determined.
81
73
77
77
92
104
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, final redmedies had been determined at 77 Federal Facility Superfund sites.
(PM 1 70) Number of remedial action proj ect
No Target
97
No Target
103
Completions
806
-------
Sub-
Objective
(3) Potentially
Responsible
Party
Participation
at Superfund
Sites
Performance Measures
completions at Superfund NPL Sites.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Established
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Although this is a new performance measure for FY 2011, results were achieved for FY 2009. Since program inception through the end of FY
2009, Superfund had completed 2,603 remedial action projects at final and deleted NPL sites. The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
FY 201 1 target represents the expected total from base funding plus ART
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
Objective - 3 - Enhance Science and Research: Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge
research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Land
Protection
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H87) Percentage of Land publications in high
impact journals.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
25.7
Actual
26.2
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2010
Target
26.7
FY 2011
Target
No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: High impact journals are an indication of quality and influence. This measure evaluates the percentage of Land publications that are accepted
within these prestigious journals and their subsequent impact on the field. The criteria and the 'impact factor' data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's
Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer
review panel (BOSC).
(PMH88) Percentage of Land publications rated as
highly cited publications.
26.8
18
No Target
Established
Biennial
27.8
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article was cited within
other publications. The criteria and the "highly cited" (top 10 percent of field) data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's Essential Science Indicator (ESI).
Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer review panel (BOSC).
(PMH89) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the manage material streams, conserve
resources and appropriately manage waste long-term
goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports on
technologies, methods, and models to manage material streams and reduce uncertainty in assessments. Additional details are described in the MYP.
(PMH90) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports,
technologies, methods, and models related to the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites. Additional details are described in the MYP.
808
-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
Objective - 1 - Chemical and Pesticide Risks: By 2014, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities,
and ecosystems.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Reduce
Chemical
Risks
Performance Measures
(PM 008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
3.5
FY 2011
Target
No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in March of 2009 estimated 7.4 percent of children
aged 1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 5 ug/dl or greater) from 1 999-2004.
(PM 009) Cumulative number of certified Renovation
Repair and Painting firms
100,000
180,000
Firms
Additional Information: The baseline is zero in 2009. This year was chosen because 2010 is the first year that firms will submit applications to EPA to become certified.
Over time, firms will either become certified directly through EPA (tracked through Federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP) or through an authorized State program
(tracked through grant reports/ACS).
(PM 10D) Percent difference in the geometric mean
blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as
compared to the geometric mean for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
29
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
28
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Baseline for percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for
non-low income children 1-5 years old is 32 percent in 1999-2002.
(PM 196) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl)
0.5
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
0
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in May of 2005 estimated a population of 3 10,000
children aged 1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater).
(PM 239) Annual number of chemicals with final values
for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL).
37
37
6
4
14
20
Chemicals
Additional Information: Baseline from program initiation in 1 996 through 2008 is 37 chemicals.
(PM 247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable
risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
100
100
100
Data Avail
10/2010
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Baseline for percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
809
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Reduce
Chemical
Risks at
Facilities and
in
Communities
(3) Protect
Human Health
from Pesticide
Risk
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
environment was developed from a 2 year analysis from 2004-2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical submissions and is 100 percent.
(PM 282) Annual reduction in the production adjusted
risk based score of releases and transfers of IUR
chemicals from manufacturing facilities
2.5
Data Avail
10/2010
2.4
Data Avail
10/2011
2.2
2.0
% RSEI Rel Risk
Additional Information: Baseline for the analysis of IUR chemicals using the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model in 1 998 was zero percent. 1998 was selected
as the baseline year because this was the first year that most of these chemicals were targeted through the HPV challenge program. Targets for this measure were
established in 2004, however, a 35 percent reduction has been observed from 1998-2006.
(PMArS) Number of countries completing phase out of
leaded gasoline, (incremental)
7
7
4
2
3
1
Countries
Additional Information: As of 2006, the baseline is 1 59 countries, out of a universe of 1 94 1 , that have phased out lead gasoline.
(PMArS) Number of countries introducing low sulfur in
fuels, (incremental)
2
5
3
2
9
2
Countries
Additional Information: As of 2006, out of a universe of 1 94, no country had phased out lead gasoline.
(PMHC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations
completed for HPV chemicals
230
300
Hazardous Units
Additional Information: The cumulative baseline through FY 2009 is 1 ,095. This is made up on US and internationally sponsored Hazard Characterization through 2009.
International HCs started being produced in the early 1990's and US sponsored HCs started to be produced in 2007.
(PMCH2) Conduct 400 risk management plan audits
and inspections.
400
628
400
654
400
400
Audits
Additional Information: Between FY 2000 and FY 2009, 5,641 Risk Management Plan audits were completed.
(PM012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to
rodenticides.
10
Percent
Additional Information: The total number of confirmed and likely rodenticide exposure to children ages 1-6 during the baseline period is 99,652 exposures reported for an
average of 14,236 per year (1999-2005) according to the data from the Poison Control Center's National Poison Data System.
(PM 091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or
before PRIA or negotiated due date).
99
99
Percent
Additional Information: In 2008, 99.9 percent of decisions were completed on time.
(PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with
18.5
21
20
Data Avail
21
21.5
Percent
810
-------
Sub-
Objective
(4) Protect the
Environment
from Pesticide
Risk
Performance Measures
reduced-risk pesticides.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline for acres-treated is 3.6 percent of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acre treatments was 30,332,499 and total (all
pesticides) was 843,063,644 acre-treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by Doane Marketing Research, Inc serve as the basis for computing the
percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total number of pesticides treatments each acre receives each year. List of reduced-
risk pesticides can be found on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/reducedrisk.html.
(PM265) Improve or maintain a rate of incidents per
100,000 potential risk events in population
occupationally exposed to pesticides.
No Target
Established
Biennial
<=
3.5/100,000
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
<=
3.5/100,000
Incidents
Additional Information: According to the data from Poison Control Center's National Poison Data System (200 1-2003), there were 1,388 incidents out of 39,850,000
potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides. Occupational incidents include incidents from exposure to conventional and disinfectant pesticides and
outcomes associated with minor, moderate, or major effects or death.
(PM 266) Percent reduction in concentrations of
pesticides detected in general population.
30
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
50
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: According to NHANES data for FY 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population are:
Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 ug/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5
ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol =1.9 ug/L.
(PM 267) Percent reduction in moderate to severe
incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides
with the highest incident rate.
No Target
Established
Biennial
30
Data Avail
10/2010
No Target
Established
50
Percent
Additional Information: The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on F Y 1 999 -2003 data were:
Chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29 incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents, based on data from
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), andNIOSH's Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR).
(PM011) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
1,075
1,194
2,000
1,770
1,500
1,500
Decisions
Additional Information: Actual in FY 2005 is 501 product re-registrations.
(PM 164) Number of pesticide registration review
dockets opened.
70
71
Dockets
Additional Information: Baseline for registration review work dockets is 71 opened in 2008.
(PM230) Number of pesticide registration review final
work plans completed.
70
70
Work Plans
Additional Information: Baseline for final work plans for registered pesticides reviewed is 47 in 2008.
(PM 268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key
25,25,30
40, 0, 30
No Target
Established
Biennial
5, 0, 20
No Target
Established
Percent
811
-------
Sub-
Objective
(5) Realize the
Benefits from
Pesticide Use
Performance Measures
pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and
malathion)
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 1 992-200 1 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 40 percent; chlorpyrifos, 37
percent; and malathion, 30 percent.
(PM 269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key
pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and
chlorpyrifos).
0,10
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: Based on F Y 1 992 - 200 1 data, 1 8 percent of agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for azinphos-methyl and 1 8 percent of
agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for chlorpyrifos.
(PM240) Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency
Exemption Decisions
45
34
45
40
45
45
Days
Additional Information: Baseline for SI 8 decisions is 45 day sin 2005.
(PM271) Millions of dollars in termite structural
damage avoided annually by ensuring safe and effective
pesticides are registered/re-registered and available for
termite treatment.
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
$900 M
Dollars
Additional Information: Based on U.S Census housing data, industry data, and academic studies on damage valuation, EPA calculates that in FY 2003 there were $900
million in annual savings from structural damage avoided due to availability of registered termiticides.
(PM272) Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by
ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address
pest infestations.
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
$1.5B
Loss Avoided
Additional Information: According to EPA andUSDA data for they ears FY 2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $1.5 billion in avoided crop
loss.
Objective - 2 - Communities: Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Sub-
Objective
(3) Assess and
Performance Measures
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Actual
1,453
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
1,295
FY 2010
Target
1,000*
FY 2011
Target
1,000*
Unit
Properties
812
-------
Sub-
Objective
Clean Up
Brownfields
(4) Sustain
and Restore
the United
States -
Mexico
Border
Environmental
Health
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1 ,295 properties. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the
FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB32) Number of properties cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
60
78
60
93
60*
60*
Properties
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program cleaned up 93 properties. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the FY
2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready
for reuse.
225
4,404
1,000
2,660
1,000*
1,000*
Acres
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program made 2,660 acres of land ready for reuse. *The program which this measure supports received funds
from ARRA; the FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
5,000
5,484
5,000
6,490
5,000*
5,000*
Jobs
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged 6,490 jobs. *The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA; the FY
2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PMB37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
0.9
1.546
0.9
1.06
0.9*
0.9*
Billion Dollars
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged S1.06B in cleanup and redevelopment funding. *The program which this measure supports
received funds from ARRA; the FY 2010 and FY 201 1 targets do not include results anticipated from ARRA. Results from ARRA funding are being tracked separately.
(PM4pg) Loading of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.-
Mexico border area since 2003.
24
Million Pounds/Year
Additional Information:
(PMxb2) Number of additional homes provided safe
drinking water in the U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
(cumulative)
2,500
5,162
1,500
1,584
28,434
33,434
Homes
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e. , connected) to safe drinking
water as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)- supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes since this
measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to safe drinking water
in 2003 (98,5 1 5 homes). The known universe was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources.
(PMxbS) Number of additional homes provided
adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation
15,000
31,686
105,500
43,594
246,175
345,675
Homes
813
-------
Sub-
Objective
(5) Sustain
and Restore
Pacific Island
Territories
Performance Measures
in 2003 (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to adequate
wastewater sanitation as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes
since this measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to adequate
wastewater sanitation services in 2003 (690,723). The known universe of unconnected homes was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) sources.
(PMpil) Percent of population in each of the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories (served by community water
systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking
water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling
average basis.
72
Additional Information: In 2005, 95 percent of the population in America
percent of Guam served by CWS received drinking water that meets all a
(PMpi2) Percent of time that sewage treatment plants in
the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit
limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS).
67
79
73
80
73
75
Percent Population
n Samoa, 10 percent in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 80
splicable health-based standards. This measure is on a four quarter rolling average basis.
67
62
65
62
63
Percent Time
Additional Information: The sewage treatment plants in the Pacific Island Territories compiled 59 percent of the time with BOD & TSS permit limits.
(PMpiS) Percent of days of the beach season that
beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open
and safe for swimming.
70
80
80
81
80
82
Percent Days
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open and safe 64 percent of the beach season in American Samoa, 97 percent in the CNMI & 76 percent in Guam.
Objective - 3 - Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Increase
Wetlands
Performance Measures
(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
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No Net
Loss
FY 2010
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2011
Target
No Net
Loss
Unit
Acres
814
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Increase
Habitat
Protected or
Restored in
Estuaries of
National
Significance
(3) Improve
the Health of
the Great
Lakes
Performance Measures
404 regulatory program.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: EPA receives data for this measure from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). ACE recently finalized their database and was able to collect actual
data for the first time in FY 2009.
(PM 4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under
the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs
(cumulative).
75,000
82,875
88,000
103,507
110,000
118,000
Acres
Additional Information: From 1986-1997, the US had an annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. From
1998-2004, the US achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
(PM202) Acres protected or restored in National
Estuary Program study areas.
50,000
83,490
100,000
125,437
100,000
100,000
Acres
Additional Information: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
(PM433) Improve the overall ecosystem health of the
Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and
protecting aquatic systems.
21
23.70
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
23.4
Scale
Additional Information: The ecosystem health index for the Great Lakes in 2002 was 20.
(PM 606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment
remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great Lakes.
5.0
5.50
5.9
6.0
6.3
7.2
Cubic Yards
(million)
Additional Information: 2. 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1 997 through 200 1 of the 40 million requiring remediation.
(PM 620) Cumulative percentage decline for the long-
term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout
and walleye samples.
5
6
5
6
10
14
Percent Decline
Additional Information: On average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually - average concentrations at
Lake sites from 2002 were: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; andL Ontario- 1.2ug/g.
(PM625) Number of Beneficial Use Impairments
removed within Areas of Concern.
16
11
21
12
20
26
BUIs Removed
Additional Information: Universe of 26 1 . Baseline of 1 1 .
(PM626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great
1
3
AOCs
815
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Lakes where all management actions necessary for
delisting have been implemented (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline: 1 AOC. Universe: 31 AOCs.
(PM627) Number of normative species newly detected
in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
1.1
1.0
Number species
Additional Information: Baseline: 1.3 species per year. Universe: 181 species.
(PM 628) Acres managed for populations of invasive
species controlled to a target level (cumulative).
1,000
1,500
Number of Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero Acres
(PM629) Number of multi-agency rapid response plans
established, mock exercises to practice responses carried
out under those plans, and/or actual response actions
(cumulative).
4
7
Number
Responses/Plans
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero Acres
(PM630) Five-year average annual loadings of soluble
reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from
tributaries draining targeted watersheds.
0
0.5
Average Loadings
Additional Information: Baseline: 2003-2007. FoxRiver: 212; Saginaw River: 133; Maumee River: 623.
(PM631) Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria
standards 95 percent or more of beach days.
86
87
Percent Beaches
Additional Information: Baseline: 86 percent (2006). Universe: 100 percent.
(PM 632) Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion,
nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.
2
8 increase
Percent Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: 165,000 Acres.
(PM633) Percent of populations of native aquatic non-
threatened and endangered species self-sustaining in the
wild (cumulative).
48/147
35%;
52/147
populations
Number of species
Additional Information: Baseline (2009): 27 percent; 3 9/1 47.
(PM634) Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-
5,000
7,500
Acres
816
-------
Sub-
Objective
(4) Improve
the Health of
the
Chesapeake
Bay
Ecosystem
Performance Measures
associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero. Universe: 550,000 Acres.
(PM 635) Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island
habitats protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).
15,000
20,000
Acres
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero. Universe: 1 Million Acres.
(PM636) Number of species delisted due to recovery.
0
1
Species
Additional Information: Baseline: Zero.
(PM230) Percent of point source nitrogen reduction
goal of 49.9 million pounds achieved.
74
69
74
70
74
76
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 58 percent goal achievement (28. 76Mlbs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 69 percent goal achievement (34.51 Mlbs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM 231) Percent of point source phosphorus reduction
goal of 6.16 million pounds achieved.
85
87
87
96
89
96
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 83 percent goal achievement (5.12 M Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 87 percent goal achievement (5.36 M Ibs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM 232) Percent of forest buffer planting goal of
10,000 miles achieved.
60
57
62
62
65
68
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 12 percent goal achievement (1,189 miles planted since 1996); the 2007 baseline is 53 percent goal achievement (5,337 miles
planted since 1997).
(PM cbl) Percent of submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal
of 185,000 acres achieved, based on annual monitoring
from previous goal.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
45
Percent Acres
Additional Information: In 1985, 21 percent of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres was achieved (38,226 acres).
(PMcb2) Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100
percent standards attainment achieved, based on annual
monitoring from the previous calendar year and the
preceding 2 years.
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
40
Percent Dissolved
Oxygen
Additional Information: In 1 988, 15 percent of the Dissolved Oxygen goal of 1 00 percent standards attainment was achieved.
(PM cb3) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
50
47
50
49
52
56
Percent Goal
817
-------
Sub-
Objective
(5) Improve
the Health of
the Gulf of
Mexico
(6) Restore
and Protect
Performance Measures
nitrogen reduction practices to reduce nitrogen 162.5M
Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 175M Ib/yr cap load,
based on long-term avg. hydrology simulations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 33 percent goal achievement (52.82 million Ibs reduced since 1 985); the 2007 baseline is 46 percent goal achievement (74.63
million Ibs reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb4) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
phosphorus reduction practices to reduce phosphorus
14.36M Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 12. 8M Ib/yr
cap load, based on LT avg. hydrology simulations.
66
62
64
65
66
70
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 56 percent goal achievement (8.02 million Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 62 percent goal achievement (8.83
million Ibs reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb5) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
sediment reduction practices to reduce sediment 1 .69M
tons from 1985 levels to achieve a4.15Mton/yr cap
load, based on long-term avg. hydrology simulations.
64
64
67
64
71
71
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 47 percent goal achievement (0.79 million tons reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 61 percent goal achievement (1.03
million tons reduced since 1986.)
(PM22b) Improve the overall health of coastal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report.
2.5
2.20
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.6
Scale
Additional Information: In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2. 2 where the rating is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is poor and 5 is good and is
expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report II indicators: water quality index, sediment quality index, benthic
index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
(PMxgl) Restore water and habitat quality to meet
water quality standards in impaired segments in 13
priority coastal areas (cumulative starting in FY 07).
64
131
96
131
96
128
Impaired Segments
Additional Information: In 2008, Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands habitats included 3,769,370 acres.
(PMxg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative
number of acres of important coastal and marine
habitats.
18,200
25,215
26,000
29,344
27,500
30,000
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 25,215 acres were restored, enhanced, or protected in the Gulf of Mexico.
(PM H5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-
equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long
52
52
Percent Goal
Achieved
818
-------
Sub-
Objective
Long Island
Sound
(7) Restore
and Protect the
South Florida
Ecosystem
Performance Measures
Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE
Ibs/day.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The 2000 TMDL baseline is 59,146 Trade-Equalized (TE) pounds/day. The 2014 TMDL target is 22,774 TE/pounds/day.
(PM H6) Percent of goal achieved in restoring,
protecting or enhancing 240 acres of coastal habitat
from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres.
33
50
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The Long Island Sound Study established a goal to restore or protect 240 additional acres of coastal habitat from 2009-2014, from a 2008 baseline
of 1,1 99 acres.
(PMU7) Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river
and stream miles to diadromous fish passage from the
2008 baseline of 124 miles.
33
50
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The Long Island Sound Study established a goal to reopen 50 river/stream miles to diadromous fish passages in 2009-2014, from a 2008 baseline
of 124 miles.
(PMsf3) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than to equal to 0.35
ug 1-1 and light clarity ( Kd) )levels at less than or equal
to0.20m-l.
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information: In 2005, Total water quality was at chl < 0.2 ug/1, light attenuation < 0. 1 3/meter, DIN < 0.75 micromolar, and TP < 0.2 micromolar.
(PMsf4) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or
equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at
less than or equal to .25 uM.
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information:
(PMsfS) Improve the water quality of the Everglades
ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 ppb total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh.
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Maintain
Parts/Billion
Additional Information: In 2005, The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in the Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water
Conservation 3A, 1 3 ppb in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 1 8 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow- weighted from total phosphorus
discharges from storm water treatment areas ranged from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W. Effluent limits will be established for all discharges, including storm
819
-------
Sub-
Objective
(8) Restore
and Protect the
Puget Sound
Basin
(9) Restore
and Protect the
Columbia
River Basin
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
water treatment areas.
(PMpsl) Improve water quality and enable the lifting of
harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing
areas impacted by degrading or declining water quality.
450
1,566
600
1,730
1,800
1,925
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 1 ,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions.
(PMps2) Remediate acres of prioritized contaminiated
sediments.
100
123
125
123.1
123
127
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 123 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated.
(PMpsS) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally
influenced estuarine wetlands.
2,310
4,413
5,700
5,751
6,500
7,250
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally -influenced estuarine wetlands were restored
(PMcrl) Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland
habitat and acres of upland habitat in the Lower
Columbia River watershed (cumulative starting FY 06).
8,000
12,986
10,000
15,700
16,000
16,300
Acres
Additional Information: In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetlands were available for protection, enhancement or restoration in the Lower Columbia River Estuary.
(PMcr2) Clean up acres of known contaminated
sediments (cumulative starting FY 06).
5
10
20
60
Acres
Additional Information: In 2006, 400 acres of known highly contaminated sediments were found in the main-stem of the Lower Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers.
(PMcrS) Demonstrate a reduction in mean
concentration of contaminants of concern found in water
and fish tissue (cumulative starting in FY 06.)
10
Mean Concentration
Additional Information:
Objective - 4 - Enhance Science and Research: Identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and
analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on
pesticides and chemical toxicology; global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Unit
820
-------
(1) Human
Health
Research
(PM H07) Percentage of human health program
publications rated as highly cited papers.
Target
25.5
Actual
25.60
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
26.5
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews.
(PMH29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of public health outcomes long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic data long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH31) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH32) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the susceptible subpopulations long-term
goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
821
-------
Sub-
Objective
(2) Ecosystem
Research
(3) Human
Health Risk
Assessment
Research
(4) Global
Climate
Change
Research
(6) Safe
Performance Measures
(PMI19) Percentage of Ecological Research
publications rated as highly-cited publications.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
21.4
Actual
Data Avail
2010
FY 2010
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2011
Target
22.4
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "highly cited" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as
the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC
in their program reviews.
(PMI20) Percentage of Ecological research publications
in "high-impact" journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
21.3
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
22.3
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PMH83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of HHRA Technical Support Documents.
90
89
90
100
90
90
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH76) Percentage of Global publications rated as
highly cited publications.
No Target
Established
25
23
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
24
Percent
Additional Information: The criteria and the "highly cited" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator (ESI)
(PMH77) Percentage of Global publications in high
impact journals.
No Target
Established
24.1
24.6
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
25.6
Percent
Additional Information: The criteria and the "impact factor" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
(PMH79) Percentage of planned outputs delivered.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs will be outlined in the program's revised Multi-Year Plan. This measure will track progress toward completing those
milestones across the program.
(PMI06) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Pesticides and
822
-------
Sub-
Objective
Products
Research
(7) Homeland
Security
Research
Performance Measures
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI08) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI10) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year.
(PMI11) Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly
cited publications.
23.2
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
24.2
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an article is cited within
other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by
"Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent
expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors.
(PMI12) Percent of SP2 publications in "high impact"
journals.
36.2
Data Avail
2010
No Target
Established
Biennial
37.2
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors.
(PMH72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe
disposal of contamination wastes.
100
92
100
85
100
80
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMH73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of water security initiatives.
100
83
100
100
100
80
Percent
823
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
824
-------
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing environmental
statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for
governments, tribes, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
Objective - 1 - Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance: Address environmental problems, promote compliance
and deter violations, by achieving goals for national priorities and programs including those with potential environmental justice concerns and
those in Indian country.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Air Pollution
(2) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Water
Pollution
(3) Address
Environmental
Problems from
Waste, Toxics,
anH PesticiHes
Performance Measures
(PM 400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate air pollutants
through concluded enforcement actions.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
480
FY 2011
Target
480
Unit
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 480 million pounds.
(PM401) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for air as a
result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
127
127
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 151 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate water pollutants
through concluded enforcement actions.
320
320
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 320 million pounds.
(PM403) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for water as
a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
608
608
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 626 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate toxics and
pesticides through concluded enforcement actions.
3.8
3.8
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 3.8 million pounds.
(PM405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate hazardous waste
6,500
6,500
Million Pounds
825
-------
Sub-
Objective
Pollution
(4) Criminal
Enforcement
Performance Measures
through concluded enforcement actions.
Additional Information: FY 2008 Baseline: 6,500 million
(PM406) Total number of regulated entities that change
behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the
prevention of pollution into the environment for land as
a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
sounds.
213
213
Entities
Additional Information: FY 2007-2008 Average Baseline: 235 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits,
direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and Federal inspections that result in direct or preventative environmental benefits.
(PM407) Percent of recidivism.
<1
<1
Percent
Additional Information: FY 1998-2009 Average Baseline: <1 percent.
(PM408) Percent of closed cases with criminal
enforcement consequences (indictment, conviction, fine,
or penalty).
33
33
Percent
Additional Information: FY 2006-2008 Average Baseline: 33 percent.
Objective - 2 - Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices: By 2014, enhance
public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of
other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Prevent
Pollution and
Promote
Environmental
Stewardship
Performance Measures
(PM 262) Gallons of water reduced by P2 program
participants.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
1.64B
Actual
21.18B
FY 2009
Target
1.79B
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
26.2 B
FY 2011
Target
24.9 B
Unit
Gallons
Additional Information: In 2006, the P2 program conserved 4.37 billion gallons of water.
(PM263) Business, institutional and government costs
reduced by P2 program participants.
45.9 M
227.2 M
130 M
Data Avail
10/2010
1,060M
1,550 M
Dollars Saved
Additional Information: In 2006, the P2 program saved businesses, institutions, and governments $632 million dollars.
826
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PM 264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2
program participants.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
429 M
Actual
469.8 M
FY 2009
Target
494 M
Actual
Data Avail
10/2010
FY 2010
Target
1,625 M
FY 2011
Target
1,880 M
Unit
Pounds
Additional Information: In 2006, the Pollution Prevention program reduced 960 Million Pounds of hazardous materials.
(PM 297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset by Pollution
Prevention (P2) program participants.
2M
Data Avail
10/2010
5.9M
11.6M
MTCO2e
Additional Information: In 2006, the Pollution Prevention Program reduced, conserved, or offset 1.53 Million metric tons of Co2 equivalent.
(PMPB5) Quantity of priority chemicals reduced from
all phases of the manufacturing lifecycle through source
reduction and/or recycling.
l.OM
5.70
1.0
7.05
0.75
0.75
Pounds
Additional Information: The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) program reduced approximately 7.05 million pounds of priority chemicals during
FY 2009. NPEP now has over 260 partners, including many federal and state facilities, who have removed more than nearly 16.3 million pounds of priority chemicals
through both source reduction and recycling activities.
Objective - 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country: Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands
by assisting federally-recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and
implement environmental programs in Indian country.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Improve
Human Health
and the
Environment
in Indian
Country
Performance Measures
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal
regulatory environmental programs in Indian country
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
6
Actual
14.16
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
12.6
FY 2010
Target
14
FY 2011
Target
18
Unit
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved
environmental monitoring and assessment activities in
Indian country (cumulative.)
21
42.31
23
40
42
45
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
827
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
(PM 5PS) Percent of Tribes with an environmental
program (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
64
FY 2010
Target
65
FY 2011
Target
67
Unit
Percent Tribes
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding
Objective - 4 - Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research: Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific
research on pollution prevention, new technology development, and sustainable systems. The products of this research will provide critical and
key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving complex multimedia problems for the Agency and its partners and
stakeholders.
Sub-
Objective
(1) Science
and
Technology
for
Sustainability
Performance Measures
(PM 128) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
identified and developed metrics to quantitatively assess
environmental systems for Sustainability.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2011
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
developed decision support tools and methodologies.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
828
-------
Sub-
Objective
Performance Measures
innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
Unit
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 1 00 percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its
annual output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners
when making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PMI31) Percentage of Science and Technology for
Sustainability (STS) publications in "high impact"
journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
35.3
35.4
No Target
Established
36
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews
829
-------
ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Performance Measures
(PM 006) Percent of GS employees hired within 80
calendar days.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2011
Target
60
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2008, OPM issued an 80-day hiring model for the GS schedule employees. This 80-day hiring measure will better focus hiring
improvements needed from an applicant's, managers' and HR staffs' perspective and drive Agency-wide change. The Agency established a baseline of 58 percent in FY08.
(PM 098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy
consumption.
9
13
12
18
15
18
Percent
Additional Information: On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management,
requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce its Green House Gas intensity and its energy use by 3 percent annually through FY 201 5. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities,
the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 346,518 BTUs per square foot.
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Performance Measures
(PM 052) Number of major EPA environmental systems
that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster
receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
48
FY 2009
Target
50
Actual
55
FY 2010
Target
60
FY 2011
Target
67
Unit
Systems
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no data flows using CDX.
(PM 053) States, tribes and territories will be able to
exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time,
using standards and automated data-quality checking.
55
59
60
59
65
65
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no nodes for states and tribes.
830
830
-------
Performance Measures
(PM 054) Number of users from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report
environmental data electronically to EPA.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
100,000
Actual
127,575
FY 2009
Target
130,000
Actual
184,109
FY 2010
Target
195,000
FY 2011
Target
205,000
Unit
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in F Y 200 1 . Prior to that there were no users.
(PM 408) Percent of Federal Information Security
Management Act reportable systems that are certified
and accredited.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to Federal agencies and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to strengthen information
system security. The continued goal, as required by FISMA, is for the Agency to achieve a continuous 100 percent compliance status with Certification and Accreditation
(C&A) of all reportable systems.
NPM: INSPECTOR GENERAL
Performance Measures
(PM 35A) Environmental and business actions taken for
improved performance or risk reduction.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
334
Actual
463
FY 2009
Target
318
Actual
272
FY 2010
Target
334
*ARRA:20
FY 2011
Target
334
*ARRA:50
Unit
Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 444 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction.
The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline in actions taken has increased as a subsequent time
lag response to both the previous years' recommendations and an OIG concentrated effort to identify unimplemented recommendations for actions by EPA. *The program
which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
(PM 35B) Environmental and business
recommendations or risks identified for corrective
action.
971
624
903
983
903
*ARRA: 90
903
*ARRA:110
Recommendations
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 865 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective actions.
The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of
DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels. *The program which this measure
supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1 Target.
831
831
-------
Performance Measures
(PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and
investigations.
Performance Data
FY 2008
Target
150
Actual
186
FY 2009
Target
120
Actual
150
FY 2010
Target
120
FY 2011
Target
120
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 176 percent in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget from
identified opportunities for savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries and settlements. The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the
period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap
between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels.
(PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions.
80
84
80
95
75
*ARRA:3
80
*ARRA:8
Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 80 criminal, civil and administrative actions, which has remained constant over time. *The
program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and FY 201 1
Target.
832
832
-------
PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE
Assessment Measures
Year Data
Available
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measures
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone Depleting substances
measured in tons/yr. of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP).
Level of total equivalent stratospheric chlorine, measured in parts per billion
of air by volume.
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through
lowered radon exposure.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmcte) of greenhouse gas in the
building sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas in the
industry sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
reductions in the transportation sector.
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources.
Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000
from mobile sources.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
eastern Class I areas.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
western Class I areas.
Percent change in number of chronically acidic waterbodies in acid sensitive
regions.
Percent change in annual average nitrogen deposition.
Percent change in annual average sulfur deposition.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
parti culate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in
all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions
from 1993 baseline.
Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan.
FY2010
FY2014
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2014
FY2014
FY2018
FY2018
FY 2030
FY2012
FY2012
FY2015
FY2015
FY2014
FY2012
833
-------
Assessment Measures
Percentage reduction in tons of toxicity -weighted (for non-cancer) risk
emissions from 1993 baseline.
Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthmas triggers.
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard
setting and air quality management decisions. (Research)
Utility of ORD's research for assessing the linkage between health impacts
and air pollutant sources and reducing the uncertainties that impede the
understanding and usefulness of these linkages.
Utility of ORD's research for reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard-setting and air quality management decisions.
Percentage of U.S. population in proximity to an ambient radiation
monitoring system that provides scientifically sound data for assessing public
exposure resulting form radiological emergencies.
Reduced incidence of melanoma skin cancers, measured by new skin cancer
cases avoided per 100,000 population.
Tons of fine parti culate matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation sources.
Percentage of program outputs appearing in the Office of Air and Radiation's
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Staff Paper.
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources
based on the risk they pose to human health. (Research)
Efficiency Performance Measures
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large engines
(nonroad Compression Ignition, Heavy duty gas and diesel engines).
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total emission
reduction dollars spent (both EPA and private industry).
Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million
dollars invested.
Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air
monitoring data during an emergency.
Total federal dollars spent per school joining the Sun Wise program.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
the Building sector.
Year Data
Available
FY2014
FY2012
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
FY2014
FY 2050
FY2014
FY2014
FY2012
UD
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2014
834
-------
Assessment Measures
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
the Industry sector.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in
the Transportation sector.
Reduction in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) per total dollar spent
on sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission reduction.
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100 since 2003 per grant dollar allocated to the States in
support of the NAAQS program.
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process State
Implementation Plan revisions, weighted by complexity.
Total cost (public and private) per future premature lung cancer death
prevented through lowered radon exposure.
Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste
generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at
WIPP.
Annual cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all essential actions to
reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is implementing an
indoor air quality plan.
Tons of toxi city -weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emissions reduced
per total cost ($).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.
Year Data
Available
FY2014
FY2014
FY2015
FY2010
FY2010
FY2012
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
UD
UD
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Long-Term Performance Measures
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water
supply and wastewater disposal.
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr).
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale).
Number of baseline monitoring stations showing improved water quality in
tribal waters.
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or subsequent years) as
being primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully restored.
FY2014
FY2018
FY2014
FY2012
FY2012
835
-------
Assessment Measures
Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained.
Ensure that the condition of the Nation's wadeable streams does not degrade
(i.e. there is no statistically significant increase in the percent of streams rated
"poor" and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated "good."
Reduction in the number of cases of bladder cancer attributable to the
implementation of Stages 1 and Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rules
(DBPRs).
Reduction in annual endemic cases of Cryptosporidiosis attributable to the
implementation of the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2).
Usefulness of ORD's risk management research products for enabling EPA's
Office of Water, regions, water utilities, and other key stakeholders to manage
pubic health risks associated with exposure to drinking water, implement
effective safeguards on the quality and quantity of surface and underground
sources of drinking water, improve the water infrastructure, and establish
health-based based measures of program effectiveness.
Usefulness of ORD's characterization methodologies, data, and tools by
EPA's Office of Water and other key stakeholders in developing health risk
assessments, producing regulatory decisions, implementing new and revised
rules, and achieving simultaneous compliance under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Efficiency Performance Measures
Average funding (in millions of dollars) per project initiating operations.
Total Federal National UIC Program costs per well managed (Classes I, II,
III, and V).
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided.
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided.
Section 319 funds ($ million) expended per partially or fully restored
waterbody.
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.
Year Data
Available
FY2012
FY2012
FY2014
FY2014
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
UD
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
UD
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measures
Acres of land ready for re-use at Superfund sites.
UD
836
-------
Assessment Measures
Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found to be non-compliant brought
into compliance.
Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found to be non-compliant brought into
compliance.
Gallons of oil verified as safely stored at the time of inspection at FRP and
SPCC facilities during the fiscal year.
Total PRP-lead removal actions completed under EPA oversight.
Efficiency Performance Measures
Cleanups complete (3 -year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars.
Number of annual confirmed UST releases per federal, state and territorial
costs.
Human Exposure avoided per million dollars spent on fund-lead removal
actions.
Total gallons of oil capacity verified as safely stored at inspected FRP and
SPCC facilities during the reporting period per one million program dollars
spent annually on prevention and preparedness.
Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond to
requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and evaluation of
characterization and treatability study plans.
Year Data
Available
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
UD
UD
UD
UD
2012
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measures
% of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments where ORD methods, models or
data for assessing risk to susceptible subpopulations is cited as supporting a
decision to move away from or apply default risk assessment assumptions.
% of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's characterization of
aggregate/cumulative risk is cited as supporting a decision to move away
from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions.
Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species
Bulletin.
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25% of homes in the U.S. Mexico
border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
By 2012, provide wastewater sanitation to 25% of homes in the U.S. Mexico
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
FY2013
FY2013
FY2014
UD
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
837
-------
Assessment Measures
Cumulative number of chemicals for which proposed values for Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGL) have been developed.
Cumulative reduction in the production adjusted risk based score of releases
and transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
Cumulative reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases
and transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals from
manufacturing facilities.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on humans,
wildlife, and the environment to better inform the federal and scientific
communities.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern.
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children
1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income
children 1-5 years old.
Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks
for two key pesticides of concern.
Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern.
Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not
pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for States, tribes, and
relevant EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation and
achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for States,
tribes, and relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological impacts of various
actions and achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and methods for
States, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and restore ecological
condition and services to achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used HHRA
peer-reviewed health assessments.
Utility of ORD's methods, model, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to characterize aggregate and cumulative risk in order to manage
risk of humans exposed to multiple environmental stressors.
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's
mechanistic information is cited as supporting a decision to move away from
or to apply default risk assessment assumptions.
Year Data
Available
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
UD
FY2014
FY2010
FY2011
FY2014
FY2010, 2014
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2013
838
-------
Assessment Measures
Year Data
Available
Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
FY2011
Reduction in PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related higher homologue
chemicals in facility emissions by PFOA Stewardship program participants.
FY2010
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure, assessment, and
management of endocrine disrupters so that EPA has a sound scientific
foundation for environmental decision-making.
FY2012
Utility of ORD's methods and models for risk assessors and risk managers to
evaluate the effectiveness of public health outcomes.
FY2012
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to use mechanistic (mode of action) information to reduce
uncertainty in risk assessment.
FY2012
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make decisions related to products of biotechnology.
FY2015
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other
organizations to make probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural
populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants.
FY2015
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk
managers to characterize and provide adequate protection for susceptible
subpopulations.
FY2012
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and other organizations to prioritize testing
requirements; enhance interpretation of data to improve human health and
ecological risk assessments; and inform decision-making regarding high
priority pesticides and toxic substances.
FY2015
Utility of ORD's priority health hazard assessments for Agency, state and
local risk assessors.
FY2012
Utility of ORD's state-of-the-science risk assessment models, methods and
guidance for EPA programs, states, and other risk assessors.
FY2012
Utility of ORD Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) for providing best
available scientific information on identifiable effects resulting from exposure
to criteria pollutants.
FY2012
States use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to
determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness
of programs and policies.
FY2011
Annual Performance Measures
Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change to
air quality.
UD
839
-------
Assessment Measures
Efficiency Performance Measures
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal
expenditures).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Ecological Research).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Global Research).
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Pesticides and Toxics
Research).
Average cost to produce assessment documents (Human Health Risk
Assessment).
Contract cost reduction per study for assay validation efforts in the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program.
Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure
to submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a
credible and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by
external expert review).
Year Data
Available
UD
FY2012
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measures
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated.
Cumulative business, institutional and government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
Cumulative pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
Cumulative gallons of water reduced by Pollution Prevention (P2) program
participants.
Cumulative Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced,
conserved, or offset by P2 Program participants.
Utility of ORD-identified and developed metrics for quantitatively assessing
environmental systems for sustainability.
Utility of ORD-developed decision support tools and methodologies for
promoting environmental stewardship and sustainable environmental
management practices.
Utility of innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD for solving
environmental problems and contributing to sustainable outcomes.
UD
FY2011,
FY2011,
FY2011,
2014
2014
2014
FY2014
FY2015
FY2015
FY2015
840
-------
Assessment Measures
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enforcement)
Annual Performance Measures
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of inspection/enforcement.
(pest, enforcement)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pest, enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enforcement).
Severity of the crimes investigated (as measured by the percent of open high
impacts cases (criminal enforcement).
Efficiency Performance Measures
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per million dollars of
cost (Federal + State), (pest enforcement)
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (Sustainability Research).
Ratio of number of students that have improved environmental knowledge per
total dollar expended, reported as dollar per student.
Year Data
Available
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
841
-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
The data verification and validation has been updated to reflect changes in performance
measures for FY 2010.
The complete FY 2011 data verification and validation is available at:
http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2011/2011cj.htm
842
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 844
Environmental Programs 844
Enabling Support Programs 877
Major Management Challenges 884
EPA User Fee Program 903
Working Capital Fund 906
Acronyms 907
STAG Categorical Program Grants 912
Program Projects by Appropriation 920
Program Projects by Program Area 935
Discontinued Programs 949
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security 950
Categorical Grant: Puerto Rico 951
Categorical Grant: Sector Program 952
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training 954
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 955
Compliance Assistance and Centers 956
Compliance Incentives 957
Regional Geographic Initiatives 958
Expected Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives 959
Superfund Special Accounts 966
High Priority Performance Goals (HPPGs) 968
2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 969
Acting IG Statement on IG Funding 988
843
-------
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Programs
Goal 1- Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective: Healthier Outdoor Air
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cooperates with other federal, state, Tribal, and
local agencies in achieving goals related to ground level ozone and particulate matter (PM).
EPA continues to work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest
Service in developing its burning policy and reviewing practices that can reduce emissions.
EPA, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) work
with state and local agencies to integrate transportation and air quality plans, reduce traffic
congestion, and promote livable communities. EPA continues to work with the Department of
the Interior (DOT), National Park Service (NFS), and U.S. Forest Service in developing its
regional haze program and deploying the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring network. The operation and analysis of data
produced by the PM monitoring system is an example of the close coordination of efforts
between the EPA and state and Tribal governments.
For pollution assessments and transport, EPA is working with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) on technology transfer using satellite imagery. EPA will work to
further distribute NASA satellite products and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) air quality forecast products to Regions, states, local agencies, and
Tribes to provide a better understanding of air quality on a day-to-day basis and to assist with
PM forecasting. EPA will also work with NASA to develop a better understanding of PM
formation using satellite data. EPA works with the Department of the Army on advancing
emission measurement technology and with NOAA for meteorological support for our modeling
and monitoring efforts. EPA collects realtime ozone and PM measurements from State and local
agencies, which are then sent to NOAA to both feed the Air Quality Forecast model and offer
initial verification of its results.
To better understand the magnitude, sources, and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works
with the Department of Energy (DOE) and DOT to fund research projects. A program to
characterize exhaust emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being co-funded by DOE and
DOT. Other DOT mobile source projects include TRANSIMS (TRansportation ANalysis and
SIMulation System) and other transportation modeling projects; DOE is funding these projects
through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. EPA also works closely with DOE on
refinery cost modeling analyses and the development of clean fuel programs. For mobile sources
program outreach, the Agency is participating in a collaborative effort with DOT's Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to educate the
public about the impacts of transportation choices on traffic congestion, air quality, and human
health. This community-based public education initiative also includes the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC). In addition, EPA is working with DOE to identify opportunities in the Clean
Cities program. EPA also works with other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard
844
-------
(USCG) on air emission issues, and 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.) EPA is also working with
the National Highway Transportation Administration and the USDA on greenhouse gas
transportation rules. EPA is working with DOE, DOT, and other agencies as needed on the
requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007.
To develop air pollutant emission factors and emission estimation algorithms for aircraft, ground
equipment, and military vehicles, EPA has partnered with the Department of Defense. This
partnership will provide for the joint undertaking of air-monitoring/emission factor research and
regulatory implementation.
To reduce air toxics emissions that may inadvertently increase worker exposure, EPA is
continuing to work closely with the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to coordinate the development of EPA and OSHA standards. EPA also
works closely with other health agencies such as the CDC, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health on health risk characterization for both toxic and criteria air pollutants. To assess
atmospheric deposition and characterize ecological effects, EPA works with NOAA, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the USDA, and the U.S. Forest Service.
EPA has worked extensively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the
National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Study to identify mercury accumulations in humans.
EPA also has worked with DOE on the Fate of Mercury study to characterize mercury transport
and traceability in Lake Superior. EPA is a partner with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the development of the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network,
providing air quality indicators as well as air pollution health effects expertise.
To determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution, EPA will
continue to work closely with the USDA through the joint USD A/EPA Agricultural Air Quality
Task Force (AAQTF). The AAQTF is a workgroup set up by Congress to oversee agricultural
air quality-related issues and to develop cost-effective ways in which the agricultural community
can improve air quality. In addition, the AAQTF coordinates research on agricultural air quality
issues to avoid duplication and ensure data quality and sound interpretation of data.
In developing regional and international air quality programs and projects, and in working on
regional agreements, EPA works primarily with the Department of State, the Agency for
International Development (USAID), and the DOE, as well as with regional organizations.
EPA's international air quality management program complements EPA's programs on
children's health, Trade and the Environment, and trans-boundary air pollution. In addition,
EPA partners with other organizations worldwide, including the United Nations Environment
Programme, the European Union, the Organization for Economic Development and Co-
operation, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the
845
-------
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, and our air quality colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe,
China, and Japan.
Objective: Healthier Indoor Air
EPA works closely through a variety of mechanisms with a broad range of Federal, state, Tribal,
and local government agencies, industry, non-profit organizations, and individuals, as well as
other nations, to promote more effective approaches to identifying and solving indoor air quality
problems. At the Federal level, EPA works closely with several departments or agencies:
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and coordinate programs
aimed at reducing children's exposure to known indoor triggers of asthma, including
secondhand smoke;
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on home health and safety
issues including radon;
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to identify and mitigate the health
hazards of consumer products designed for indoor use;
• Department of Education (DoEd) to encourage construction and operation of schools
with good indoor air quality; and
• Department of Agriculture (USDA) to encourage USDA Extension Agents to conduct
local projects designed to reduce risks from indoor air quality. EPA plays a leadership
role on the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to
Children, particularly with respect to asthma and school environmental health issues.
As Co-chair of the interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality (CIAQ), EPA works with the
CPSC, DOE, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and OSHA to review
EPA draft publications, arrange the distribution of EPA publications, and coordinate the efforts
of Federal agencies with those of state and local agencies concerned with indoor air issues.
Objective: Protect the Ozone Layer
EPA works very closely with the Department of State and other Federal agencies in international
negotiations among Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and in developing the implementing regulations. While the environmental goal of the Montreal
Protocol is to protect the ozone layer, the ozone depleting substances it controls are also
significant greenhouse gases. Therefore, this work also protects the Earth's climate system.
According to a 2007 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1,
chemical controls implemented under the Montreal Protocol will - by 2010 - have delayed the
onset of serious climate effects by a decade. EPA works on several multinational environmental
agreements to simultaneously protect the ozone layer and climate system, including working
closely with the Department of State and other Federal agencies, including OMB, OSTP, CEQ,
USDA, FDA, Commerce, NOAA, and NASA.
1 Guus J. M. Velders, Stephen O. Andersen, John S. Daniel, David W. Fahey, and Mack McFarland;
The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate; PNAS 2007 104:4814-4819; published online before print
March 8, 2007; doi:10.1073/pnas.0610328104.
846
-------
EPA works with other agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative
and Department of Commerce, to analyze potential trade implications in stratospheric protection
regulations that affect imports and exports. EPA leads a task force with the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Treasury, and other agencies to
curb the illegal importation of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Illegal import of ODS has the
potential to prevent the United States from meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol to restore
the ozone layer.
EPA has continued discussions with DOD to assist in the effective transition from ODS and
high-GWP substitutes to a suite of substitutes with lower GWPs.
EPA works with USDA and the Department of State to facilitate research, development, and
adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA collaborates with these agencies to prepare
U.S. requests for critical use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is providing input to USDA
on rulemakings for methyl bromide-related programs. EPA also consults with USDA on
domestic methyl bromide needs.
EPA coordinates closely with Department of State and FDA to ensure that sufficient supplies of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are available for the production of life-saving metered-dose inhalers
for the treatment of asthma and other lung diseases. This partnership between EPA and FDA
combines the critical goals of protecting public health and limiting damage to the stratospheric
ozone layer.
EPA's Sun Wise program works with the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate the UV
Index, a forecast of the next day's ultraviolet radiation levels, which helps people determine
appropriate sun-protective behaviors. The SunWise program also collaborates with the CDC
when developing new sun safety and skin cancer prevention resources, including a shade
planning guide, state-specific skin cancer fact sheets, and other school- and community-based
resources. SunWise collaborates with state and local governments through the SunWise
Communities program. SunWise is a successful environmental and health education program
that teaches children and their caregivers how to protect themselves from overexposure to the
sun through the use of classroom-, school-, and community-based components. More than
22,000 schools have received SunWise teaching materials—reaching more than one million
students over the life of the program. The most recent study of the program, conducted in 2006-
2007, found that for every dollar invested in SunWise, between approximately $2 and $4 in
medical care costs and productivity losses are saved and concluded that from a cost/benefit and
cost-effectiveness perspective, it is worthwhile to educate children about sun safety.2
EPA coordinates with NASA and NOAA to monitor the state of the stratospheric ozone layer
and to collect and analyze UV data, including science assessments that help the public
understand what the world may have looked like without the Montreal Protocol and its
amendments3. EPA works with NASA on assessing essential uses and other exemptions for
2 Jessica W. Kyle, James K. Hammitt, Henry W. Lim, Alan C. Geller, Luke H. Hall-Jordan, Edward W. Maibach, Edward C. De
Fabo, Mark C. Wagner; "Economic Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise Program: Sun
Protection Education for Young Children." Pediatrics, Vol. 121 No. 5 May 2008, pp. el074-e!084
3 The Ozone Layer: Ozone Depletion, Recovery in a Changing Climate, and the "World Avoided;" Findings and Summary of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4; November 2008.
847
-------
critical shuttle and rocket needs, as well as effects of direct emissions of high-speed aircraft
flying in the stratosphere.
EPA works with DOE on GreenChill4 and Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)5 efforts. The
GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA cooperative alliance with the
supermarket industry and other stakeholders to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and
practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and
greenhouse gases. EPA's RAD Program is a partnership program that protects the ozone layer
and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through the recovery of ozone-depleting chemicals
from old refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers.
EPA coordinates with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that proposed rules
are developed in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Objective: Radiation
EPA works primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy
(DOE), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on multiple radiation protection issues.
EPA has ongoing planning and guidance discussions with DHS on Protective Action Guidance
and general emergency response activities, including exercises responding to nuclear related
incidents. As the regulator of DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, EPA has to
continually coordinate oversight activities with DOE to keep the facility operating in compliance
with its regulations. EPA also works with the Department of Transportation (DOT) on
initiatives to promote the use of non-nuclear density gauges for highway paving. EPA is also
working with tribes to locate and clean up radioactive wastes produced from uranium mining that
contaminate tribal water resources with radionuclides and heavy metals, while identifying and
providing new sources of clean drinking water for these at-risk communities.. EPA also works
with NRC and DOE on the development of state-of-the-art tracking systems for radioactive
sources in U.S. commerce and the prevention of radioactive contaminated metals and products
from entering the United States.
For emergency preparedness purposes, EPA coordinates closely with other Federal agencies
through the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee and other coordinating
bodies. EPA participates in planning, and implementing table-top and field exercises including
radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the NRC, DOE, Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and DHS.
EPA works closely with other Federal agencies when developing radiation policy guidance under
its Federal Guidsance authority. This authority was transferred to EPA from the Federal
Radiation Council in 1970 and tasks the Administrator with making radiation protection
recommendations to the President. When signed by the President, Federal Guidance
recommendations are addressed to all Federal agencies and are published in the Federal
Register. Risk managers at all levels of government use this information to assess health risks
from radiation exposure and to determine appropriate levels for clean-up of radioactively
contaminated sites. EPA's radiation science is widely relied on and is the objective foundation
4 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill
5 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad
848
-------
for EPA, other Federal agencies and states to develop radiation risk management policy,
standards and guidance.
EPA is a charter member and co-chairs the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
Standards (ISCORS). ISCORS was created at the direction of Congress. Through quarterly
meetings and the activities of its six subcommittees, member agencies are kept informed of
cross-cutting issues related to radiation protection, radioactive waste management, and
emergency preparedness and response. ISCORS also helps coordinate a U.S. response to
radiation-related issues internationally, such as the recent proposed revision of the Basic Safety
Standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Promoting international assistance, EPA serves as an expert member of the International Atomic
Energy Agency's (IAEA) Environmental Modeling for Radiation Safety, Naturally-Occurring
Radioactive Materials Working Group. Additionally, EPA remains an active contributor to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA). EPA serves on both the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and
the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). Through the RWMC, EPA
is able to exchange information with other NEA member countries on the management and
disposal of high-level and transuranic waste. Through participation on the CRPPH and its
working groups, EPA has been successful in bringing a U.S. perspective to international
radiation protection policy.
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Voluntary climate protection programs government-wide stimulate the development and use of
renewable energy technologies and energy efficient products that will help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The effort is led by EPA and DOE with significant involvement from USDA,
HUD and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Agencies throughout the government make significant contributions to the climate protection
programs. For example, DOE will pursue actions such as promoting the research, development,
and deployment of advanced technologies (for example, renewable energy sources). The
Treasury Department will administer proposed tax incentives for specific investments that will
reduce emissions. EPA is working with DOE to demonstrate technologies that oxidize
ventilation air methane from coal mines. EPA is broadening its public information transportation
choices campaign as a joint effort with DOT. EPA coordinates with each of the above-
mentioned agencies to ensure that our programs are complementary and in no way duplicative.
This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA, DOT, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Department of Commerce, USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to
prepare the Third National Communication to the Secretariat as required under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The FCCC was ratified by the United States Senate in
1992. A portion of the Third National Communication describes policies and measures (such as
ENERGY STAR and EPA's Clean Automotive Technology initiative) undertaken by the U.S. to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation status of the policies and measures, and their
actual and projected benefits. One result of this interagency review process has been a
849
-------
refinement of future goals for these policies and measures which were communicated to the
Secretariat of the FCCC in 2002. The "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002: Third National
Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change" is available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf.
EPA works primarily with the Department of State, USAID and DOE as well as with regional
organizations in implementing climate-related programs and projects. In addition, EPA partners
with others worldwide, including international organizations such as the United Nations
Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Energy
Agency, the OECD, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in
Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA coordinates its air quality research with other Federal agencies through the Subcommittee
on Air Quality Research6 of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). The Agency and NIEHS co-chaired the subcommittee's Particulate Matter Research
Coordination Working Group, which produced a strategic plan7 for Federal research on the
health and environmental effects, exposures, atmospheric processes, source characterization and
control of fine airborne parti culate matter. The Agency is also a charter member of NARSTO,8
an international public-private partnership established in 1995 to improve management of air
quality across North America. EPA coordinates specific research projects with other Federal
agencies where appropriate and supports air-related research at universities and nonprofit
organizations through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program.
Goal 2- Clean and Safe Water
Objective: Protect Human Health
Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure Protection
EPA coordinates with other Federal agencies, primarily DHS, CDC, FDA and DoD on
biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants of high concern, and how to detect and
respond to their presence in drinking water and wastewater systems. A close linkage with the
FBI and the Intelligence Analysis Directorate in DHS, particularly with respect to ensuring the
timely dissemination of threat information through existing communication networks, will be
continued. The Agency is strengthening its working relationships with the Water Research
Foundation, the Water Environment Research Federation and other research institutions to
increase our knowledge on technologies to detect contaminants, monitoring protocols and
techniques, and treatment effectiveness.
6 For more information, see .
For more information, see .
8 For more information, see .
850
-------
Geologic Sequestration
EPA coordinates with federal agencies to plan and obtain research-related data, to coordinate
regulatory programs, and to coordinate implementation of regulations to protect underground
sources of drinking water during geologic sequestration (GS) activities. EPA works with the
Department of Energy (DOE) to plan research on monitoring, modeling, verification, public
participation, and other topics related to DOE-sponsored GS partnership programs. EPA also
coordinates with USGS, IRS, DOT, and USDOT to ensure that SDWA regulations for GS sites
are appropriately coordinated with efforts to map geologic sequestration capacity, provide tax
incentives for CO2 sequestration, and manage the movement of CO2 from capture facilities to
GS sites.
Collaboration with USGS
EPA and USGS have established an IA to coordinate activities and information exchange in the
areas of unregulated contaminants occurrence, the environmental relationships affecting
contaminant occurrence, protection area delineation methodology, and analytical methods. This
collaborative effort has improved the quality of information to support risk management
decision-making at all levels of government, generated valuable new data, and eliminated
potential redundancies.
Tribal Access Coordination
In 2003 EPA and its Federal partners in USD A, HUD, HHS, and DOT set a very ambitious goal
to reduce the number of homes without access to safe drinking water by 50% by 2015. This
goal remains ambitious due to the logistical challenges and capital and operation and
maintenance costs involved in providing access. EPA is working with its Federal partners to
coordinate spending and address some of the challenges to access on Tribal lands, and we are
hopeful that we can make measureable progress on the access issue.
Source Water Protection
EPA is coordinating with USDA and Department of Education to develop educational materials
for future farmers on reducing contamination of sources of drinking water in rural areas.
Data Availability, Outreach and Technical Assistance
EPA coordinates with USGS, USDA (Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), Rural Utilities
Service); CDC, DOT, DoD, DOE, DOT (NFS and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Land
Management, and Reclamation); HHS (Indian Health Service) and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA).
Collaboration with Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
CDC is building state capacity by directly assisting state health departments develop skills and
tools to improve waterborne disease investigation and prevention. EPA is assisting CDC by
851
-------
providing technical input regarding drinking water issues. The two agencies are also
investigating the health risks associated with contaminant problems in drinking water
distribution systems. EPA and CDC regularly share expertise and information on drinking water
related health effects, risk factors, and research.
Collaboration with FDA
EPA and FDA have issued joint national fish consumption advisories to protect the public from
exposure to mercury in commercially and recreationally caught fish, as well as fish caught for
subsistence. EPA's advisory covers the recreational and subsistence fisheries in fresh waters
where states and tribes have not assessed the waters for the need for an advisory, ibid.
http://map 1 .epa.gov/html/federaladv FDA's advisory covers commercially caught fish, and fish
caught in marine waters. Ibid, http://map 1.epa.gov/html/federaladv EPA works closely with
FDA to distribute the advisory to the public. In addition, EPA works with FDA to investigate
the need for advisories for other contaminants and to ensure that these federal advisories support
and augment advisories issued by states and tribes.
Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
The BEACH Act requires that all Federal agencies with jurisdiction over coastal and Great Lakes
recreation waters adjacent to beaches used by the public implement beach monitoring and public
notification programs. These programs must be consistent with guidance published by EPA.
ibid. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants." EPA will
continue to work with the USGS and other Federal agencies to ensure that their beach water
quality monitoring and notification programs are technically sound and consistent with program
performance criteria published by EPA.
Objective: Protect Water Quality
Urban Waters
In this new effort, EPA will build on existing interagency collaborations (HUD, DOT, NOAA,
USDA) and develop new federal partnerships to advance urban waters goals of: helping
communities establish and maintain safe and equitable public access to their urban waterways;
empowering and supporting communities in revitalizing their urban waters and the surrounding
land; and linking urban water restoration to other community priorities such as employment,
education, economic revitalization, housing, transportation, health, safety and quality of life. To
meet these goals, EPA will partner with other agencies to coordinate authorities, resources,
expertise and local support.
Watersheds
Protecting and restoring watersheds will depend largely on the direct involvement of many
Federal agencies and state, Tribal and local governments who manage the multitude of programs
necessary to address water quality on a watershed basis. Federal agency involvement will
include USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Agriculture Research
Service), DOI (Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, USGS, USFWS, and the
852
-------
Bureau of Indian Affairs), NOAA, DOT, and DoD (Navy and COE). At the state level, agencies
involved in watershed management typically include departments of natural resources or the
environment, public health agencies, and forestry and recreation agencies. Locally, numerous
agencies are involved, including Regional planning entities such as councils of governments, as
well as local departments of environment, health and recreation who frequently have strong
interests in watershed projects.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES).
Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the CWA, EPA and the authorized
states have developed expanded relationships with various Federal agencies to implement
pollution controls for point sources. EPA works closely with USFWS and the National Marine
Fisheries Service on consultation for protection of endangered species through a Memorandum
of Agreement. EPA works with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on National
Historic Preservation Act implementation. EPA and the states rely on monitoring data from
USGS to help confirm pollution control decisions. The Agency also works closely with SBA
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that regulatory programs are fair
and reasonable. The Agency coordinates with the NOAA on efforts to ensure that NPDES
programs support coastal and national estuary efforts; and with the DOT on mining issues.
Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
The Agency is working closely with the USDA to implement the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations finalized on March 9, 1999. The Strategy sets forth a framework of
actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water quality and public health impacts from
improperly managed animal wastes in a manner designed to preserve and enhance the long-term
sustainability of livestock production. EPA's recent revisions to the CAFO Regulations (effluent
guidelines and NPDES permit regulations) will be a key element of EPA and USDA's plan to
address water pollution from CAFOs. EPA and USDA senior management meet routinely to
ensure effective coordination across the two agencies.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Representatives from EPA's SRF program, HUD's Community Development Block Grant
program, and USDA's Rural Utility Service have signed a MOU committing to assisting state or
Federal implementers in: (1) coordination of the funding cycles of the three Federal agencies;
(2) consolidation of plans of action (operating plans, intended use plans, strategic plans, etc.);
and (3) preparation of one environmental review document, when possible, to satisfy the
requirements of all participating Federal agencies. A coordination group at the Federal level has
been formed to further these efforts and maintain lines of communication. In many states,
coordination committees have been established with representatives from the three programs.
In implementation of the Indian set-aside grant program under Title VI of the CWA, EPA works
closely with the Indian Health Service to administer grant funds to the various Indian Tribes,
including determination of the priority ranking system for the various wastewater needs in Indian
853
-------
Country. In 1998, EPA and the Rural Utilities Service of the USDA formalized a partnership
between the two agencies to provide coordinated financial and technical assistance to tribes.
Federal Agency Partnerships on Impaired Waters Restoration Planning
The Federal government owns about 29.6% of the land in the United States and administers over
90% of these public lands through four agencies: Forest Service (FS), Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS), National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In managing
these extensive public lands, federal agencies have a substantial influence on the protection and
restoration of many waters of the US. Land management agency focus on water issues has
increased significantly, with the FS, FWS, and BLM all initiating new water quality and
watershed protection efforts. EPA has been conducting joint national assessments with these
agencies to enhance watershed protection and quantify restoration needs on federal lands.
National assessments of FWS and FS properties have already documented the extent and type of
impaired waters on these agencies' lands, developed GIS databases, reported national summary
statistics, and developed interactive reference products (on any scale, local to national),
accessible to staff throughout the agencies. Similar joint assessments are planned with the other
major federal land management agencies. These assessments have already influenced the
agencies in positive ways. The FS and the FWS have GPRA-related performance measures that
involve impaired waters, now coordinated with the same EPA baseline. The FS used their
national assessment data to institute improvements in a national monitoring and BMP training
program. Also, under an MOA between EPA and FS, numerous aquatic restoration projects
have been jointly funded and carried out. The FWS is using their national assessment data to
develop a $10M - 20M out-year budget initiative concerning water conservation, quality, and
quantity monitoring and management in the National Wildlife Refuge System, and also using the
assessment in National Fish Hatcheries System planning. Further, EPA assessments and datasets
made significant contributions to the government-wide National Fish Habitat Action Plan
(NFHAP) 2010 national assessment offish habitat condition.
Nonpoint Sources
EPA will continue to work closely with its Federal partners to achieve our goals for reducing
pollutant discharges from nonpoint sources, including reduction targets for sediments, nitrogen
and phosphorous. Most significantly, EPA will continue to work with the USDA, which has a
key role in reducing sediment loadings through its continued implementation of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other
conservation programs. USDA also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through
these same programs and through activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA will also continue
to work closely with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management especially on the vast
public lands that comprise 29 percent of all land in the United States. EPA will work with these
agencies, USGS, and the states to document improvements in land management and water
quality.
EPA will also work with other Federal agencies to advance a watershed approach to Federal land
and resource management to help ensure that Federal land management agencies serve as a
model for water quality stewardship in the prevention of water pollution and the restoration of
854
-------
degraded water resources. Implementation of a watershed approach will require coordination
among Federal agencies at a watershed scale and collaboration with states, tribes and other
interested stakeholders.
Marine Pollution Prevention
EPA works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard on addressing ballast water discharges
domestically, and with the interagency work group and U.S. delegation to Marine Environmental
Protection Committee (MEPC) on international controls. EPA will continue to work closely
with the U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska and other states, and the Cruise Lines International
Association regarding regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to managing wastewater
discharges from cruise ships. Also, EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Coast Guard in the
development of Best Management Practices and discharge standards under the Clean Boating
Act. Additionally, EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard on vessel sewage standards.
Regarding dredged material management, EPA will continue to work closely with the COE on
standards for permit review, as well as site selection/designation and monitoring. EPA will also
continue to participate in site visits and the review of clean up plans for individual Navy and
Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects.
EPA works closely with a number of other Federal agencies to prepare reports as well as respond
to reports to Congress. More specifically, EPA works/and will continue to work with other
members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC) to implement an
action plan for assessing and reducing marine debris in response to the 2008 EVIDCC Report to
Congress. EPA also will continue to participate on an interagency working group tasked to
review and make recommendations in a report to Congress on best management practices for the
storage and disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the Federal Government.
EPA also participates on the Committee on Marine Transportation System (CMTS) regarding
environmental issues such as dredging and ship channel configuration, as well as reducing
pollutant sources during operations and cargo handling. The CMTS is a cabinet-level committee
and has an established partnership amongst 18 different Federal agencies.
EPA works with the Department of State, NOAA, USCG, Navy, and other Federal agencies in
developing the technical basis and policy decisions necessary for negotiating global treaties
concerning marine antifouling systems, invasive species, and operational discharges from
vessels. EPA also works with the same Agencies in addressing land-based sources of marine
pollution in the Gulf of Mexico and Wider Caribbean Basin.
EPA chairs the intergovernmental Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task
Force (Gulf Hypoxia Task Force) and is responsible for overseeing implementation of the 2008
Gulf Hypoxia Hypoxia Action Plan. Also, EPA is a member of the Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources (CENR) which coordinates the research activities among Federal
agencies to assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
855
-------
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA's Clean Water Research Programs are in accordance with the Administration's policy of
scientific integrity.9 While EPA is the Federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water,
other Federal and non-Federal entities are conducting research that complements EPA's drinking
water research program. For example, the CDC and NIEHS conduct health effects and exposure
research, the USGS is actively involved in monitoring sources of drinking water for chemicals
and emerging contaminants. FDA also performs research on children's health risks. The DOE
and USGS are actively involved in research that relates to underground sources of drinking
water, with increasing efforts focused on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. The Bureau
of Reclamation is also involved in research on water resources and water purification with an
emphasis on recovering water from saline or impaired sources.
The private sector, particularly water utilities and industries that develop and support treatment
and monitoring technologies, is actively involved in research activities on analytical methods,
treatment technologies, water infrastructure rehabilitation, repair, and replacement, and water
resources protection. Recently there has been increasing interest in research to support water
efficiency, reduce the energy dependencies of water systems, and implementation of alternative
"green" technologies for treatment and distribution of water. There has also been increasing
interest in linking the quality of water with its intended use to preserve high quality water for
potable purposes and substitute alternative sources for nonpotable applications (e.g. toilet
flushing, irrigation, etc.). Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the Water
Research Foundation and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research on emerging
contaminants water infrastructure, and other topics. In 2009 EPA and the Water Research
Foundation formed the Distribution System Research and Information Collection Partnership
(RICP) to coordinate and collaborate on decision-relevant distribution system research.
EPA has active collaborations with several federal agencies through a variety of efforts. EPA
actively participates in the interagency Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR) Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ). The CENR is also
coordinating the research efforts among Federal agencies to assess the impacts of nutrients and
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, EPA is working directly with CDC in coordinating
research on waterborne disease outbreaks, pathogens, algal toxins, and water distribution
systems, EPA is also working with USGS on monitoring pharmaceuticals, personal care
products, and other emerging contaminants, evaluating newly developed methods for microbial
monitoring, and interpreting water data from the Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
program. This effort has helped demonstrate that pesticide levels in urban watersheds can
exceed levels in agricultural dominated streams and follow-on collaborations will be integrated
into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database system. EPA has also 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.
9http://www.whitehouse.gov/thej3ress_officeMemorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/
856
-------
Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective: Reserve Land
Pollution prevention activities entail coordination with other Federal departments and agencies.
EPA coordinates with the General Services Administration (GSA) on the use of safer products
for indoor painting and cleaning, with the Department of Defense (DoD) on the use of safer
paving materials for parking lots, and with the Defense Logistics Agency on safer solvents. The
program also works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other groups to
develop standards for Environmental Management Systems.
In addition to business, industry, and other non-governmental organizations, EPA works with
Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation and safe recycling
of wastes. Partners in this effort include the Environmental Council of States and the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
The Federal government is the single largest potential source for "green" procurement in the
country, for office products as well as products for industrial use. EPA works with the Office of
Federal Environmental Executive and other Federal agencies and departments in advancing the
purchase and use of recycled-content and other "green" products. In particular, the Agency is
currently engaged with other organizations within the Executive Branch to foster compliance
with Executive Order 13423 and in tracking and reporting purchases of products made with
recycled contents, in promoting electronic stewardship and achieving waste reduction and
recycling goals.
In addition, the Agency is currently engaged with the DoD, the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Postal Service, and other agencies to foster proper
management of surplus electronics equipment, with a preference for reuse and recycling. With
these agencies, and in cooperation with the electronics industry, EPA and the Office of the
Federal Environmental Executive launched the Federal Electronics Challenge which will lead to
increased reuse and recycling of an array of computers and other electronics hardware used by
civilian and military agencies.
Objective: Restore Land
Super fund Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial program coordinates with several other Federal agencies, such as
ATSDR and NIEHS, in providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish
the program's mission. In FY 2011, EPA will have active interagency agreements with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior
(DOI).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also substantially contributes to the cleanup of Superfund
sites by providing technical support for the design and construction of many fund-financed
remediation projects through site-specific interagency agreements. This Federal partner has the
technical design and construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA
857
-------
regions in implementing most of Superfund's remedial action projects. This agency also provides
technical on-site support to Regions in the enforcement oversight of numerous construction
projects performed by private Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).
Superfund Federal Facilities Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Program coordinates with Federal agencies, states, Tribes and
state associations and others to implement its statutory responsibilities to ensure cleanup and
property reuse. The Program provides technical and regulatory oversight at Federal facilities to
ensure human health and the environment are protected.
EPA has entered into Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with DoD, DOE, and other federal
agencies to expedite the cleanup and transfer of Federal properties, and was recently approached
by the U.S. Coast Guard for oversight assistance as they focus on downsizing their lighthouse
inventory. A Memorandum of Understanding has been negotiated with DoD to continue the
Agency's oversight support through September 30, 2011 for the acceleration of cleanup and
property transfer at Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations affected by the first four
rounds of BRAC. In addition, EPA has signed an IAG with DOE for technical input regarding
innovative and flexible regulatory approaches, streamlining of documentation, integration of
projects, deletion of sites from the National Priorities List (NPL), field assessments, and
development of management documents and processes. The joint EPA/DOE IAG has received
recognition as a model for potential use at other DOE field offices.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA Permitting and Corrective Action Programs coordinate closely with other Federal
agencies, primarily the DoD and DOE, which have many sites in the corrective action and
permitting universe. Encouraging Federal facilities to meet the RCRA Corrective Action and
permitting program's goals remains a top priority.
RCRA Programs also coordinate with the Department of Commerce and the Department of State
to ensure the safe movement of domestic and international shipments of hazardous waste.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
EPA, with very few exceptions, does not perform the cleanup of leaking underground storage
tanks (LUST). States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund to administer their corrective
action programs, oversee cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement
actions, and pay for cleanups in cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling
or unable to pay for a cleanup.
States are key to achieving the objectives and long-term strategic goals. Except in Indian
Country, EPA relies on state agencies to implement the LUST Program, including overseeing
cleanups by responsible parties and responding to emergency LUST releases. LUST cooperative
agreements awarded by EPA are directly given to the states to assist them in implementing their
oversight and programmatic role.
858
-------
Emergency Preparedness and Response
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. EPA implements the Emergency
Preparedness program in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other
Federal agencies to deliver Federal assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments during
natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. This requires continuous coordination
with many Federal, state and local agencies. The Agency participates with other Federal agencies
to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
The National Response Plan (NRP), under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), provides for the delivery of Federal assistance to states to help them deal with the
consequences of terrorist events as well as natural and other significant disasters. EPA maintains
the lead responsibility for the NRP's Emergency Support Function covering inland hazardous
materials and petroleum releases and participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function
Leaders Group which addresses NRP planning and implementation at the operational level.
EPA coordinates its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other Federal agencies, states and local governments. EPA will continue to
clarify its roles and responsibilities to ensure that Agency security programs are consistent with
the national homeland security strategy.
Super fund Enforcement
As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and Executive Order (EO) 12580, OECA coordinates with other federal agencies in
their use of CERCLA enforcement authority. This includes the coordinated use of CERCLA
enforcement authority at individual hazardous waste sites that are located on both nonfederal
land (EPA jurisdiction) and federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As required by EO13016,
the Agency also coordinates the use of CERCLA section 106 administrative order authority by
other Departments and agencies.
EPA also coordinates with the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce to ensure
that appropriate and timely notices required under CERCLA are sent to the Natural Resource
Trustees. The Department of Justice also provides assistance to EPA with judicial referrals
seeking recovery of response costs incurred by the U.S., injunctive relief to implement response
actions, or enforcement of other CERCLA requirements.
Super fundFederal Facilities Enforcement Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that 1) all Federal facility sites
on the National Priority List have interagency agreements, also known as Federal Facility
Agreements or FFAs, which provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the entire
cleanup; 2) these FFAs are monitored for compliance; and 3) Federal sites that are transferred to
new owners are transferred in an environmentally responsible manner. It is this program's
responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies, by law, comply with Superfund cleanup
859
-------
obligations "in the same manner and to the same extent" as private entities. After years of
service and operation, some Federal facilities contain environmental contamination, such as
hazardous wastes, unexploded ordnance, radioactive wastes or other toxic substances. To enable
the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement program coordinates
creative solutions that protect both human health and the environment. These enforcement
solutions help restore facilities so they can once again serve an important role in the economy
and welfare of local communities and our country.
Oil Spills
Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works with other Federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, 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 provides assistance to agencies with judicial
referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. In FY 2011, EPA will have an
active interagency agreement with the USCG. EPA and the USCG work in coordination with
other Federal authorities to implement the National Preparedness for Response Program.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA expends substantial effort coordinating its research with other Federal agencies, including
work with DoD in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, DOE and its Office of Health
and Environmental Research. EPA also conducts collaborative laboratory research with DoD,
DOE, DOI (particularly the USGS), and NASA to improve characterization and risk
management options for dealing with subsurface contamination.
The Agency is also working with NIEHS, which manages a large basic research program
focusing on Superfund issues, to advance fundamental Superfund research. The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also provides critical health-based information
to assist EPA in making effective cleanup decisions. EPA works with these agencies on
collaborative projects, information exchange, and identification of research issues and has a
MOU with each agency. EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Navy recently signed a MOU to
increase collaboration and coordination in contaminated sediments research. Additionally, the
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) has proved an effective forum for
coordinating Federal and state activities and for defining continuing research needs through its
teams on topics including permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and Brownfields EPA has
developed an MOU10 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 are being conducted with the USGS and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
10 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
860
-------
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective: Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Coordination with state lead agencies and with the USDA provides added impetus to the
implementation of the Certification and Training program. States also provide essential
activities in developing and implementing the Endangered Species and Worker Protection
programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations, including emergency
response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance and assistance to the states and Tribes
in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.
EPA uses a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public. Outreach and
coordination activities are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions. In
addition coordination activities protect workers and endangered species, provide training for
pesticide applicators, promote integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and
support for compliance through EPA's Regional programs and those of the states and Tribes.
In addition to the training that EPA provides to farm workers and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing
specialized training for various groups. Such training includes instructing private applicators on
the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment calibration, handling
spill and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and pesticide and
container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public works employees on grounds
maintenance, to pesticide control operators on proper insect identification, and on weed control
for agribusiness.
EPA coordinates with and uses information from a variety of Federal, state and international
organizations and agencies in our efforts to protect the safety of America's health and
environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the USDA implemented the
Pesticide Data Program (PDF) to collect objective and statistically reliable data on pesticide
residues on food commodities. This action was in response to public concern about the effects of
pesticides on human health and environmental quality. EPA uses PDF data to improve dietary
risk assessment to support the registration of pesticides for minor crop uses.
PDF is critical to implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The system provides
improved data collection of pesticide residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods,
and sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children. PDF sampling, residue,
testing and data reporting are coordinated by the Agricultural Marketing Service using
cooperative agreements with ten participating states representing all regions of the country. PDF
serves as a showcase for Federal-state cooperation on pesticide and food safety issues.
FQPA requires EPA to consult with other government agencies on major decisions. EPA,
USDA and FDA work closely together using both a MOU and working committees to deal with
a variety of issues that affect the involved agencies' missions. For example, agencies work
together on residue testing programs and on enforcement actions that involve pesticide residues
861
-------
on food, and we coordinate our review of antimicrobial pesticides. The Agency coordinates with
USDA/ARS in promotion and communication of resistance management strategies.
Additionally, we participate actively in the Federal Interagency Committee on Invasive Animals
and Pathogens (ITAP) which includes members from USDA, DOL, DoD, DHS and CDC to
coordinate planning and technical advice among Federal entities involved in invasive species
research, control and management.
While EPA is responsible for making registration and tolerance decisions, the Agency relies on
others to carry out some of the enforcement activities. Registration-related requirements under
FIFRA are enforced by the states. The HSS/FDA enforces tolerances for most foods and the
USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service enforces tolerances for meat, poultry and some egg
products.
Internationally, the Agency collaborates with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety
(IFCS), the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) and NAFTA Commission. These activities serve to coordinate policies,
harmonize guidelines, share information, correct deficiencies, build other nations' capacity to
reduce risk, develop strategies to deal with potentially harmful pesticides and develop greater
confidence in the safety of the food supply.
To effectively participate in the international agreements on POPs, heavy metals and PIC
substances, EPA must continue to coordinate with other Federal agencies and external
stakeholders, such as Congressional staff, industry, and environmental groups. For example,
EPA has an interest in ensuring that the listing of chemicals, including the application of criteria
and processes for evaluating future chemicals for possible international controls, is based on
sound science. Similarly, the Agency typically coordinates with FDA's National Toxicology
Program, the CDC/ATSDR, NIEHS and/or the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
on matters relating to OECD test guideline harmonization.
EPA's objective is to promote improved health and environmental protection, both domestically
and worldwide. The success of this objective is dependent on successful coordination not only
with other countries, but also with various international organizations such as the
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), OECD, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
and the CODEX Alimentarius Commission. NAFTA and cooperation with Canada and Mexico
play an integral part in the harmonization of data requirements.
EPA is a leader in global discussions on mercury and was instrumental in the launch of UNEP's
Global Mercury Program, and we will continue to work with developing countries and with other
developed countries in the context of that program. In addition, we have developed a strong
network of domestic partners interested in working on this issue, including the DOE and the
USGS.
EPA has developed cooperative efforts on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with key
international organizations and bodies, such as the United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, the Arctic Council, and the World
862
-------
Bank. EPA is partnering with domestic and international industry groups and foreign
governments to develop successful programs.
One of the Agency's most valuable partners on pesticide issues is the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee (PPDC), which brings together a broad cross-section of knowledgeable
individuals from organizations representing divergent views to discuss pesticide regulatory,
policy and implementation issues. The PPDC consists of members from industry/trade
associations, pesticide user and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest
groups and others.
The PPDC provides a structured environment for meaningful information exchanges and
consensus building discussions, keeping the public involved in decisions that affect them.
Dialogue with outside groups is essential if the Agency is to remain responsive to the needs of
the affected public, growers and industry organizations.
EPA works closely with Federal agencies to improve the health of children and older adults.
Working with the CDC, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), a national action agenda to reduce
environmental triggers of childhood asthma was developed and implemented.
The Agency continues to work with other Federal agencies in the development of children's
environmental health indicators used to monitor the outcomes of children's health efforts. The
Agency collaborates with the CDC, National Center for Health Statistics and obtains approval
from the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (www.childstats.gov) on the
reporting of appropriate children's health indicators and data. EPA also participates in the
development of the annual report entitled "America's Children: Key National Indicators of Weil-
Being."
EPA has partnered with NIEHS since 1998 to fund over ten Children's Environmental Health
and Disease Prevention Centers nation wide through its STAR grants program. A 2009 RFA
will fund the next generation of these Centers, some of which will continue to work with existing
cohorts of children and some of which will explore new concepts in children's health as new
"formative" centers.
EPA is an active partner in the National Children's Study (NCS), and has been since its inception
in 2000. NCS is an interagency study funded by NIH and conducted in partnership with CDC
and ATSDR. EPA is represented on the Interagency Coordinating Committee (3 members from
ORD and one member from OCHPEE) and provides advice and expertise on a number of NCS
committees and workgroups. As the pilot phase, initiated in 2009, is evaluated, opportunities for
further collaborative and adjunct studies will be explored.
As a member of the Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, EPA helps to assure that key
indicators associated with important aspects of older Americans' lives are considered in reports
such as "Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Weil-Being."
863
-------
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) support the Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) which provide education and consultation
services on children's environmental health issues to health professionals, public health officials,
and the public.
EPA works closely with other Federal agencies to improve children's health in schools. For
example, EPA has incorporated into the new Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool
(Healthy SEAT), a number of recommendations and requirements from the Department of
Education, the CDC, DOT, DOE, CPSC and OSHA.
EPA relies on data from HHS to help assess the risk of pesticides to children. Other
collaborative efforts that go beyond our reliance on the data they collect include developing and
validating methods to analyze domestic and imported food samples for organophosphates,
carcinogens, neurotoxins and other chemicals of concern. These joint efforts protect Americans
from unhealthful pesticide residue levels.
EPA's chemical testing data provides information for the OSHA worker protection programs,
NIOSH for research, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for informing
consumers about products through labeling. EPA frequently consults with these Agencies on
project design, progress and the results of chemical testing projects.
The Agency works with a full range of stakeholders on homeland security issues: USD A, CDC,
other Federal agencies, industry and the scientific community. Review of the agents that may be
effective against anthrax has involved GSA, State Department, Research Institute for Infectious
Disease, FDA, EOSA, USPS, and others, and this effort will build on this network.
The Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL) program is a collaborative effort that includes ten
Federal agencies (EPA, DHS, DOE, DoD, DOT, NIOSH, OSHA, CDC, ATSDR, and FDA),
numerous state agencies, private industry, academia, emergency medical associations, unions,
and other organizations in the private sector. The program also has been supported
internationally by the OECD and includes active participation by the Netherlands, Germany and
France.
The success of EPA's lead program is due in part to effective coordination with other Federal
agencies, states and Indian Tribes through the President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children. EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to clarify how
new rules may affect existing EPA and HUD regulatory programs, and with the FHWA and
OSHA on worker protection issues. EPA will continue to work closely with state and Federally
recognized Tribes to ensure that authorized state and Tribal programs continue to comply with
requirements established under TSCA, that the ongoing Federal accreditation certification and
training program for lead professionals is administered effectively, and states and Tribes adopt
the Renovation and Remodeling and the Buildings and Structures Rules when these rules
become effective.
EPA has a MOU with HUD on coordination of efforts on lead-based paint issues. As a result of
the MOU, EPA and HUD have co-chaired the President's Task Force since 1997. There are
864
-------
fourteen other Federal agencies including CDC and DoD on the Task Force. HUD and EPA also
maintain the National Lead Information Center and share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule.
Mitigation of existing risk is a common interest for other Federal agencies addressing issues of
asbestos and PCBs. EPA will continue to coordinate interagency strategies for assessing and
managing potential risks from asbestos and other fibers. Coordination on safe PCB disposal is
an area of ongoing emphasis with the DoD, and particularly with the U.S. Navy, which has
special concerns regarding PCBs encountered during ship scrapping. Mercury storage and safe
disposal are also important issues requiring coordination with the Department of Energy and
DoD as they develop alternatives and explore better technologies for storing and disposing high
risk chemicals.
Objective: Communities
The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, in November 1993, to assist
communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals
of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. To this purpose, the governments established two international
institutions, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund
(BEIF), to support the financing and construction of much needed environmental infrastructure.
The BECC, with headquarters in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, assists local communities
and other sponsors in developing and implementing environmental infrastructure projects. The
BECC also certifies projects as eligible for NADBank financing. The NADBank, with
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is capitalized in equal shares by the United States and
Mexico. NADBank provides new financing to supplement existing sources of funds and foster
the expanded participation of private capital.
A significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services
such as potable water and wastewater treatment and the problem has become progressively
worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the
U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission and Mexico's
national water commission, Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), to further efforts to
improve drinking water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km on the U.S. and
300 km on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program represents a successful joint effort between the U.S. and
Mexican governments in working with the 10 Border States and local communities to improve
the region's environmental health, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. A
significant number of residents along the U.S.-Mexico border area are without basic services
such as potable water and wastewater treatment and the problem has become progressively
worse in the last few decades. Over the last several years, EPA has continued to work with the
U.S. and Mexican Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission and Mexico's
national water commission, Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), to further efforts to
865
-------
improve drinking water and wastewater services to communities within 100 km on the U.S. and
300 km on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Brownfields
EPA continues to lead the Brownfields Federal Partnership. The Partnership includes more than
20 federal agencies dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties.
Partner agencies work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and redevelop brownfields.
The Brownfields Federal Partnership's on-going efforts include promoting the Portfields and
Mine-Scarred Lands projects and looking for additional opportunities to jointly promote
community revitalization by participating in multi-agency collaborative projects, holding regular
meetings with federal partners, and supporting regional efforts to coordinate federal
revitalization support to state and local agencies.
Environmental Justice
EPA will continue its work in partnership with other federal agencies to address the
environmental and public health issues facing communities with environmental justice concerns.
In 2011, the Agency will continue its efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with all
levels of government, and throughout the public and private sectors. The issues range from lead
exposure, asthma, safe drinking water and sanitation systems to hazardous waste clean-up,
renewable energy/wind power development, and sustainable environmentally-sound economies.
EPA and its federal partners are utilizing EPA's collaborative problem-solving model, based on
the experiences of federal collaborative partnerships, to improve the federal government's
effectiveness in addressing the environmental and public health concerns facing communities.
As the lead agency for environmental justice pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA shares its
knowledge and experience and offers assistance to other federal agencies as they enhance their
strategies to integrate environmental justice into their programs, policies and activities.
Objective: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program
Effectively implementing successful comprehensive management plans for the estuaries in the
NEP depends on the cooperation, involvement, and commitment of Federal and state agency
partners that have some role in protecting and/or managing those estuaries. Common Federal
partners include NOAA, USFWS, COE, and USDA. Other partners include state and local
government agencies, universities, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and
members of the public.
National Ocean Policy
EPA will continue to participate in the implementation of the objectives laid out be the
Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force, which was established by President Obama on June 12,
2009. The Task Force was led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and
consisted of 24 senior-level officials from Administration agencies, departments, and offices.
866
-------
The new National Oceans Policy and the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Framework will
help EPA combine its resources with those of other federal agencies, such as NOAA,
Department of Interior, USDA and the Army Corps of Engineers, to better protect coastal and
marine ecosystems, and to achieve the goal for clean and safe water in areas such as the Gulf of
Mexico, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the 28 estuaries that make up the National
Estuary Program.
Wetlands
EPA, USFWS, COE, NOAA, USGS, USDA, and FHWA currently coordinate on a range of
wetlands activities. These activities include: studying and reporting on wetlands trends in the
U.S., diagnosing causes of coastal wetland loss, updating and standardizing the digital map of the
nations' wetlands, statistically surveying the condition of the Nation's wetlands, and developing
methods for better protecting wetland function. In addition to that, EPA and the ACOE work
very closely together in implementing the wetlands regulatory program under Clean Water Act
Section 404. Under the regulatory program the agencies coordinate 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 the ten EPA Regional Offices and 38 ACOE
District Offices. The agencies also coordinate closely on policy development and litigation.
EPA and ACOE are committed to achieving the goal of no net loss of wetlands under the Section
404 program.
Coastal America
In efforts to better leverage our collaborative authorities to address coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g., coastal habitat losses, nonpoint source pollution, endangered species,
invasive species, etc.), EPA, by memorandum of agreement in 2002 entered into an agreement
with Multi-agency signatories. November 2002. Coastal America 2002 Memorandum of
Understanding. Available online at http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/mou02.htm
Great Lakes
EPA is leading the member Federal agencies of the Interagency Task Force11 in the development
and implementation of a new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As the Initiative progresses,
EPA will work with its partners to develop the management and coordinative structures required
for this effort, including Interagency Agreements with all appropriate Federal agency
participants. Participating agencies will focus their activities to support outcome-oriented
performance goals and measures to direct their Great Lakes protection and restoration activities.
This effort builds upon previous coordination and collaboration by the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) pursuant to the mandate in Section 118 of the Clean Water Act to
"coordinate action of the Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and state and local
authorities..." pursuant to which GLNPO was already engaged in extensive coordination efforts
with state, Tribal, and other Federal agencies, as well as with our counterparts in Canada
11 The Interagency Task Force includes eleven agency and cabinet organizations: EPA, State, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Homeland Security, Army, Council on Environmental Quality, and Health and
Human Services.
867
-------
pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Federal Interagency
Task Force, created by EO 13340, is charged with increasing and improving collaboration and
integration among Federal programs involved in Great Lakes environmental activities. The
Great Lakes task force brings together eleven Cabinet department and Federal agency heads to
coordinate restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on outcomes, such as cleaner water and
sustainable fisheries, and targeting measurable results. In December 2005, the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration issued a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The Interagency
Task Force has been able to use that work to guide development of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. Coordination by GLNPO supports the GLWQA and other efforts to improve the Great
Lakes and will now lead to implementation of priority actions for Great Lakes restoration by the
Federal agencies and their partners. Coordinative activities that will continue as part of the
implementation of the Initiative are expected to include: extensive coordination among state,
Federal, and provincial partners, both in terms of implementing the monitoring program, and in
utilizing results from the monitoring to manage environmental programs: sediments program
work with the states and the Corps regarding dredging issues; implementation of the Binational
Toxics Strategy via extensive coordination with Great Lakes States; habitat protection and
restoration with states, tribes, FWS, and NRCS; and coordination with these partners regarding
development and implementation of Lakewide Management Plans for each of the Great Lakes
and for Remedial Action Plans for the 30 remaining U.S./binational Areas of Concern.
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a partnership of several federal agencies, states, local
governments, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, and other interested
stakeholders. Only through the coordinated efforts of all of these entities will the preservation
and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay be achieved. Recognizing this need for coordination,
office directors from many of the federal agencies that form the Chesapeake Bay Program meet
on a regular basis. This group, which is chaired by EPA, includes office directors from:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
• U.S. Forest Service
• National Park Service
• U. S. Navy (representing Department of Defense)
EPA is also the lead agency representing the federal government on the Chesapeake Executive
Council, which oversees the policy direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program. In addition to the
EPA Administrator, the Chesapeake Executive Council consists of the governors of the Bay
states, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and
the Secretary of Agriculture.
868
-------
President Obama's May 2009 Executive Order (EO) on Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration has brought the federal agencies interested in the Bay and its watershed to a new
level of interagency coordination and cooperation. The EO established the Federal Leadership
Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay, which is chaired by EPA and includes the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and
Transportation. Working together, the agencies listed above and the additional FLC agencies
produced seven reports on specific Bay and watershed issues for FLC consideration. The reports
were released in draft on September 9, 2009, and as revised versions on November 24, 2009.
The FLC released a draft coordinated implementation strategy on November 9, 2009. A final
version of the strategy will be released by May 12, 2010.
Many of the initiatives resulting from the EO will result in increased or improved federal
coordination. The development of a new accountability and reporting system, for example,
depends on explicit coordination and data sharing from all of the federal agencies listed above, as
well as numerous state and local agencies. Revitalized efforts to improve and account for
agricultural best management practices depend upon cooperation between EPA, USDA, USGS,
and others.
Gulf of Mexico
Key to the continued progress of the Gulf of Mexico Program is a broad multi-organizational
Gulf states-led partnership comprised of regional; business and industry; agriculture; state and
local government; citizens; environmental and fishery interests; and, numerous Federal
departments and agencies. In response to the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, thirteen Federal agencies
formed a Regional Partnership under the leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S.
Department of Interior to provide support to the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a partnership of the
five Gulf states. This Federal Workgroup includes:
• Council on Environmental Quality
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• National Science Foundation
• U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
• U.S. Department of Defense
• U.S. Department of Energy
• U.S. Department of Interior
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• U. S. Department of State
• U.S. Department of Transportation
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Through a collaborative approach and integration of federal efforts, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Governors' Action Plan I (2006-2009) and Action Plan II ( 2009-2014) have identified specific
actions needed to improve the health of the Gulf coastal region and addressed priority issues
869
-------
facing the Gulf with scientific and technical experts and resource managers to leverage the
resources needed to support state and community actions.
Report on the Environment and assisting CDC in its Public health Surveillance efforts.
Through a collaborative approach, the priority issues of the Gulf are being addressed with
scientific and technical experts and resource managers to leverage the resources needed to
support state and community actions.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
Research in human health is coordinated with several Federal agencies that also sponsor research
on variability and susceptibility in health risks from exposure to environmental contaminants.
EPA collaborates with a number of the Institutes within the NIH and CDC. For example, the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (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's health. EPA collaborates with NIEHS in supporting the
Centers for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention, which study whether and
10
how environmental factors play a role in children's health. EPA coordinates research on
identification and management of health risks of mold with the Federal Interagency Committee
on Indoor Air Quality. EPA coordinates with ATSDR through a memo of understanding on the
development of toxicological reviews and toxicology profiles, respectively. EPA also has strong
working collaborations with CDC including 1) an MOU and projects directed at linking the CDC
Public Health Tracking Network Program with EPA's environmental monitoring data and the
indicators efforts tied to EPA's Report on the Environment; 2) an MOU and projects linking
EPA's Community Action for Renewed Environments with CDC's community-based
environmental health programs, a collaboration that already has addressed environmental public
health issues along the U.S.-Mexico border under the Binational Border 2012 Program.. EPA
and CDC are also collaborating in the areas of asthma, biomonitoring, and global health. EPA
also works collaboratively with CDC on the development of indicators of exposure and health
effects generating data included in EPA's Report on the Environment and assisting CDC in its
Public health Surveillance efforts.
Goal 5-Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective: Improve Compliance
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with DOJ on all civil
and criminal environmental enforcement matters. In addition, the program coordinates with
other agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) coordinates with the Chemical
Safety and Accident Investigation Board, OSHA, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry in preventing and responding to accidental releases and endangerment situations, with
1 For more information, see
870
-------
the BIA on Tribal issues relative to compliance with environmental laws on Tribal Lands, and
with the SBA on the implementation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). OECA also shares information with the IRS on cases which require defendants
to pay civil penalties, thereby assisting the IRS in assuring compliance with tax laws. In
addition, it collaborates with the SBA to maintain current environmental compliance information
at Business.gov, a website initiated as an e-government initiative in 2004 to help small
businesses comply with government regulations. OECA also works with a variety of Federal
agencies including the DOL and the IRS to organize a Federal Compliance Assistance
Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance issues. Coordination also occurs with
the USAGE on wetlands issues.
Under the Food Security Act, the USDA/NRCS has a major role in determining whether areas on
agricultural lands meet the definition of wetlands and are therefore regulated under the CWA.
Civil Enforcement coordinates with USDA/NRCS on these issues also. EPA's Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program also coordinates with USDA on regulation of animal feeding
operations and on food safety issues arising from the misuse of pesticides, and shares joint
jurisdiction with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on pesticide labeling and advertising.
Coordination also occurs with Customs and Border Protection on implementing the secure
International Trade Data System across all Federal agencies, and on pesticide imports. EPA and
the FDA share jurisdiction over general-purpose disinfectants used on non-critical surfaces and
some dental and medical equipment surfaces (e.g., wheelchairs). The Agency has entered into a
MOU with HUD concerning enforcement of the TSCA lead-based paint notification
requirements.
The Criminal Enforcement Program coordinates with other Federal law enforcement agencies
(i.e., 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. EPA also actively works with DOJ to establish task forces that bring together Federal,
state and local law enforcement organizations to address environmental crimes. In addition, the
program has an Interagency Agreement with the DHS to provide specialized criminal
environmental training to Federal, state, local, and Tribal law enforcement personnel at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA.
Under Executive Order 12088, EPA is directed to provide technical assistance to other Federal
agencies to help ensure their compliance with all environmental laws. The Federal Facility
Enforcement Program coordinates with other Federal agencies, states, local, and Tribal
governments to ensure compliance by Federal agencies with all environmental laws. In FY
2011, EPA will also continue its efforts to support the FedCenter, the Federal Facilities
Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov), which is now governed
by a board of more than a dozen contributing Federal agencies.
OECA collaborates with the states and Tribes. States perform the vast majority of inspections,
direct compliance assistance, and enforcement actions. Most EPA statutes envision a partnership
between EPA and the states under which EPA develops national standards and policies and the
states implement the program under authority delegated by EPA. If a state does not seek
approval of a program, EPA must implement that program in the state. Historically, the level of
871
-------
state approvals has increased as programs mature and state capacity expands, with many of the
key environmental programs approaching approval in nearly all states. EPA will increase its
effort to coordinate with states on training, compliance assistance, capacity building and
enforcement. EPA will continue to enhance the network of state and Tribal compliance
assistance providers.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance chairs the Interagency Environmental
Leadership Workgroup established by Executive Order 13148. The Workgroup consists of over
100 representatives from most Federal departments and agencies. Its mission is to assist all
Federal agencies with meeting the mandates of the Executive Order, including implementation of
environmental management systems and environmental compliance auditing programs, reducing
both releases and uses of toxic chemicals, and compliance with pollution prevention and
pollution reporting requirements. In FY 2011, OECA will also work with its Regions, states and
directly with a number of other Federal agencies to improve RCRA, CWA and other statutory
compliance at Federal facilities, including through integrated strategies, which array the full
range of Agency tools to promote compliance in an effective, efficient manner.
The Agency is required to review environmental impact statements and other major actions
impacting the environment and public health proposed by all Federal agencies, and make
recommendations to the proposing Federal agency on how to remedy/mitigate those impacts.
Although EPA is required under § 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed Federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor § 309 CAA require
a Federal agency to modify its proposal to accommodate EPA's concerns. EPA does have
authority under these statutes to refer major disagreements with other Federal agencies to the
Council on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, many of the beneficial environmental changes
or mitigation that EPA recommends must be negotiated with the other Federal agency. The
majority of the actions EPA reviews are proposed by the Forest Service, Department of
Transportation (including the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation
Administration), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior (including Bureau of
Land Management, Minerals Management Service and National Parks Service), Department of
Energy (including the Federal Regulatory Commission), and the Department of Defense.
EPA works directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the trilateral Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC). EPA's border activities require close coordination with the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Justice, and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. EPA is the lead agency
and coordinates U.S. participation in the CEC. EPA works with 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.
872
-------
Objective: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
EPA is involved in a broad range of pollution prevention (P2) activities which can yield
reductions in waste generation and energy consumption in the public and private sectors. For
example, the Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
(EPP) initiative, which implements Executive Orders 12873 and 13101, promotes the use of
cleaner products by federal agencies. This is aimed at stimulating demand for the development
of such products by industry.
This effort includes a number of demonstration projects with other federal Departments and
agencies, such as the National Park Service (NPS) (to use Green Purchasing as a tool to achieve
the sustainability goals of the parks), the Department of Defense (DoD) (use of environmentally
preferable construction materials), and Defense Logistics Agency (identification of
environmental attributes for products in its purchasing system). The program is also working
within EPA to "green" its own operations. The program also works with the Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) to develop a life-cycle based
decision support tool for purchasers.
Under the Suppliers' Partnership for the Environment program and its umbrella program, the
Green Suppliers' Network (GSN), EPA's P2 Program is working closely with NIST and its
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to provide technical assistance to the process of
"greening" industry supply chains. The EPA is also working with the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Industrial Technologies Program to provide energy audits and technical assistance to
these supply chains.
EPA is working with DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop a
"Biofuels Posture Plan," the first step in implementing a Biofuels Initiative to support the goals
of the Advanced Energy Initiative. The Biofuels Posture Plan will be designed to promote the
development of a biofuels industry in the U.S. to help shift the country towards clean, domestic
energy production and away from dependence on foreign sources of energy (mostly petroleum).
EPA is investigating the use of municipal and industrial solid and hazardous wastes as sources of
biomass that can be used to produce clean biofuels. EPA is promoting specific waste-to-energy
technologies through policy development, research, and, where feasible, regulatory change.
EPA and DOI are coordinating an Interagency Tribal Information Steering Committee that
includes the Bureau of Reclamation, DOE, Housing and Urban Department, U.S. Geological
Service, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
Service, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. This Interagency effort is
aimed to coordinate the exchange of selected sets of environmental, resource, and programmatic
information pertaining to Indian Country, among federal agencies in a "dynamic" information
management system that is continuously and automatically updated and refreshed, and to be
shared equally among partners and other constituents.
Under a two-party interagency agreement, EPA works extensively with the Indian Health
Service to cooperatively address the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of
873
-------
Indian Tribes. EPA is developing protocols with the Indian Health Service Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program for integration of databases of the two agencies, within the framework of
the Tribal Enterprise Architecture.
EPA has organized a Tribal Data Working Group under the Federal Geographic Data
Committee, and, along with BIA, is the co-chair of this group. EPA will play a lead role in
establishing common geographic data and metadata standards for Tribal data, and in establishing
protocols for exchange of information among federal, non-federal and Tribal cooperating
partners.
EPA is developing protocols with the Bureau of Reclamation, Native American Program, for
integration of databases of the two agencies, within the framework of the Tribal Enterprise
Architecture. EPA is also developing agreements to share information with the Alaska District
of the COE.
The Smart Growth program has a number of key Federal partnerships. Under an MOU with
NOAA the program is - developing a joint publication on smart growth guidelines for coastal
communities, offering introductory smart growth training through NOAA's Coastal Services
Center, and providing technical support to state Sea Grant programs. Along with the Federal
Highway Administration, the program is co-sponsoring a publication on Designing Walkable
Urban Streets and participating in an Interagency Working Group on Land Use, Vehicle Travel
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Through an interagency agreement with FEMA, EPA is
providing recovery and redevelopment assistance to five Iowa communities impacted by recent
flooding. Also through an interagency agreement, the program is working with the Centers for
Disease Control to develop Active Community Design indicators for regional Metropolitan
Listing Services (MLS) that will provide home buyers with information on neighborhood
walkability. Finally, the program has continued to work with the Forest Service's Urban and
Community Forestry and Cooperative Forestry program to promote smart growth in both urban
and rural areas.
EPA is a member of the Interagency Network of Enterprise Assistance Providers (INEAP), an
interagency collaboration that also includes the departments of Commerce, Transportation
working to leverage program effectiveness through partnership. The collaboration is focusing
specifically on ways to promote competitiveness and work toward sustainability.
EPA is also a member and plays a leadership role in the federal Program Evaluators Network
which is a cross-agency collaboration working on improving program evaluation tools and
improving capacity for more effective performance management.
Information on regulations and other issues that may have an adverse impact on small businesses
is shared regularly with the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. An ongoing
activity includes the coordination of interactions among the Office of Air and Radiation, the
State Small Business Assistance Program's National Steering Committee, and the Office of
Advocacy in the development of the proposed 55 area source Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules that will impact small businesses and state programs.
874
-------
Activities associated with the Environmental Education Program are coordinated with other
Federal agencies in a variety of ways:
EPA, in partnership with Department of Education, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and the Centers for Disease Control, is implementing a national
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3). SC3 is building a national public/private network
that will facilitate the removal of dangerous and inappropriate chemicals from K - 12 schools;
encourage responsible chemical management practices to prevent future chemical accidents and
accumulations; and raise issue awareness.
As a participant on the following interagency workgroups, EPA remains informed of related
efforts across the government and provides coordination assistance as necessary: The
Interagency Committee on Education (Chair: Department of Education); Partners in Resource
Education (Chair: National Environmental Education and Training Foundation); the Federal
Interagency Committee on Interpretation (Chair: National Park Service); Ocean Education Task
Force (workgroup of the U.S. Ocean Commission); and the United States Global Change
Research Program (Education Interagency workgroup).
EPA coordinates U.S. participation in the activities of the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) on green purchasing, supply chains, and buildings.
EPA's web portal of all Federal environmental education program web sites is:
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/FTFmemws.html.
Objective: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
EPA completed two important Tribal infrastructure Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)
amongst five federal agencies. EPA, the Department of the Interior, Department of Health and
Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development will work as partners to improve infrastructure on Tribal lands and focus efforts on
providing access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities to tribes.
The first, or umbrella MOU, promotes coordination between federal Tribal infrastructure
programs, including financial services, while allowing federal programs to retain their unique
advantages. It is fully expected that the efficiencies and partnerships resulting from this
collaboration will directly assist tribes with their infrastructure needs. Under the umbrella MOU,
for the first time, five Federal departments joined together and agreed to work across traditional
program boundaries on Tribal infrastructure issues. The second MOU, addressing a specific
infrastructure issue was created under the umbrella authority and addresses the issue of access to
safe drinking water and wastewater facilities on Tribal lands. Currently, the five Federal agencies
are working together to develop solutions for specific geographic areas of concern (Alaska,
Southwest), engaging in coordination of ARAR funding, and promoting cross-agency efficiency.
These activities are completed in coordination with federally recognized tribes.
For more information, please see the web link: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
875
-------
Additionally, EPA is working closely with other federal agencies as well as the Domestic Policy
Council to implement President Obama's directive regarding the tribal consultation process. The
President's November 5th, 2009 Memorandum directs each executive department to develop a
detailed plan to implement Executive Order (EO) 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments," issued by President Clinton in 2000. Under EO 13175, "all
departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and
collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal
implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship
between the United States and Indian tribes."
EPA is working with other federal entities that deal with tribal issues to ensure that the most
effective communication strategies are being used. Although approaches vary according to
agency or department, there is much to be gained from working closely with other agencies
throughout this process. This collaboration will not only strengthen the federal-tribal
relationship, but will also strengthen the approach used to implement EPA's policies on human
health and the environment in Indian country.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
EPA is coordinating with DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) in an ongoing partnership, especially in the areas of sustainability research and of
incorporating materials lifecycle analysis into the manufacturing process for weapons and
military equipment. EPA is continuing its partnerships with NSF, NIEHS, and NIOSH on jointly
issued grant solicitations for nanotechnology, and its coordination through the NSET with all
agencies that are part of the NNI. In addition, in response to a Congressional request to
collaborate internationally, EPA is partnering with sister agencies in the United Kingdom and
will jointly fund consortia between U.S. and United Kingdom research institutions.
EPA will continue work under the MOA with the USCG and the State of Massachusetts on
ballast water treatment technologies and mercury continuous emission monitors. The agency
also coordinates technology verifications with NOAA (multiparameter water quality probes);
DOE (mercury continuous emission monitors); DoD (explosives monitors, PCB detectors, dust
suppressants); USDA (ambient ammonia monitors); Alaska and Pennsylvania (arsenic removal);
Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan (storm water treatment); and Colorado and New York (waste-
to-energy technologies).
The statutorily mandated Biomass Research and Development Board (chaired by DOE and
USDA) provides overall federal coordination of biofuel research activities. EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) represents the Agency on this Board and co-chairs two of its
seven working groups. The two working groups chaired by EPA's ORD are the Sustainability
and Environment, Health and Safety workgroups. ORD works to ensure that all relevant EPA
offices are aware of and involved in EPA-related Board activities.
876
-------
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Office of the Administrator (OA)
The Office of the Administrator (OA) supports the leadership of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) programs and activities to protect human health and safeguard the air, water,
and land upon which life depends. Several program responsibilities include policy, homeland
security - including intelligence coordination, Congressional and intergovernmental relations, the
Science Advisory Board, children's health, and the small business program.
EPA collaborates with other Federal agencies in the collection of economic data used in the
conduct of economic benefit-cost analyses of environmental regulations and policies. The
Agency collaborates with the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of the Census on the
Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditure (PACE) survey in order to obtain information on
pollution abatement expenditures by industry. In our effort to measure the beneficial outcomes of
Agency programs, EPA co-sponsors with several other agencies the U.S. Forest Service's
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which measures national
recreation participation and recreation trends. EPA also collaborates with other natural resource
agencies (e.g., United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior (DOI),
and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)) to foster improved interdisciplinary
research and reporting of economic information by collaboratively supporting workshops and
symposiums on environmental economics topics (e.g., economic valuation of ecosystem
services, adoption of market mechanisms to achieve environmental goals) and measuring health
and welfare benefits (e.g., represent EPA issues in cross-agency group charged with informing
USDA efforts to establish markets for ecosystem services). EPA also collaborates with the State
Department and Treasury on the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) Joint Economic Study
(JES), which includes examining the environmental, economic, and human health costs of
pollution and enhancing further cooperation between the U.S. and China to analyze and address
these issues.
The EPA, through the Aging Initiative, is a member of the Federal Interagency Task Force on
Older American Indians. The purpose of the Forum is to assist tribes funded under Title VI of the
Older Americans Act. It also is a member of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) supported Working Group on Home Energy and Health. In May 2009, the National
Energy Assistance Directors' Association convened a Working Group on Home Energy and
Health. The purpose of the Working Group is to develop strategies and capacity at the state and
local level to approach energy assistance as a matter of public health, including measures of
home energy burden in needs assessment activities such as Healthy People 2020; facilitating
more efficient and cost-effective outreach for energy assistance through new partnerships with
environmental health and long-term care services organizations; demonstrating cost savings for
state Medicaid programs achieved through coordination with Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and related affordable energy programs; and strengthening the
health basis for protecting low-income households against the loss of utility service for
nonpayment.
877
-------
The Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) provides leadership for cross-Agency efforts
to protect children from exposure to toxins, pollution and other environmental health threats in
their homes, their schools, and their communities. Children are at greater risk of harm from
exposure to environmental toxins than adults because of their unique physiology and behavior
patterns. The OCHP ensures that children's unique vulnerabilities are carefully considered in
agency policy and regulatory development, and that children's environmental health is central in
our outreach and public education activities. The Office of Children's Health Protection and
Environmental Education works with other Federal departments and agencies to coordinate
diverse program and research efforts to help ensure that children's environmental health is
protected where they live, learn, work and play.
EPA's Office of Homeland Security (OHS) works closely with many other Federal departments
and agencies to meet the goals of presidential homeland security directives and plans. These
efforts include working through the Interagency Planning Committees (IPCs) and other avenues
to ensure that EPA's efforts are integrated into, and can build upon, the efforts of other Federal
agencies. OHS also coordinates the development of responses to inquiries from the White
House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Congress, and others with oversight
responsibilities for homeland security efforts. EPA's ability to effectively implement its broad
range of homeland security responsibilities is significantly enhanced through coordination with
other Federal agencies.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) primarily provides the Administrator with independent peer
reviews and advice on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to inform the
Agency's environmental decision-making. Often, the Agency program office seeking the SAB's
review and advice has identified the Federal agencies interested in the scientific topic at issue.
The SAB coordinates with those Federal agencies by providing notice of its activities through the
Federal Register, and as appropriate, inviting Federal agency experts to participate in the peer
review or advisory activity. The SAB, from time to time, also convenes science workshops on
emerging issues, and invites Federal agency participation through the greater Federal scientific
and research community.
EPA's Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) works with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and other Federal agencies to increase the participation of small and
disadvantaged businesses in EPA's procurements. OSBP works with the SBA to develop EPA's
goals for contracting with small and disadvantaged businesses; address bonding issues that pose
a roadblock for small businesses in specific industries, such as environmental clean-up and
construction; and address data-collection issues that are of concern to Offices of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) throughout the Federal government. EPA's OSBP
works closely with the Center for Veterans Enterprise and EPA's Regional and program offices
to increase the amount of EPA procurement dollars awarded to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned
Small Businesses (SDVOSB). OSBP, through its Minority Academic Institutions (MAI)
Program, also works with the Department of Education and the White House Initiative on
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) to increase the institutional capacity of
HBCUs, and to create opportunities for them to work with Federal agencies, especially in the
area of scientific research and development. OSBP coordinates with the Minority Business
Development Agency, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, the Department of Defense (DoD),
878
-------
and many other Federal agencies to provide outreach to small disadvantaged businesses and
Minority-Serving Institutions throughout the United States and the trust territories. OSBP's
Director is an active participant in the Federal OSDBU Directors' Council (www.osdbu.gov).
The OSDBU Directors' Council collaborates to support major outreach efforts to small and
disadvantaged businesses, SDVOSB, and minority academic institutions via conferences,
business fairs, and speaking engagements. The OSBP's Asbestos and Small Business
Ombudsman partners with SBA and other Federal agencies to ensure small business concerns are
considered in regulatory development and compliance efforts, and to provide networks,
resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses across the
country.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
OCFO makes active contributions to standing interagency management committees, including
the Chief Financial Officers Council focusing on improving resources management and
accountability throughout the Federal government. OCFO actively participates on the
Performance Improvement Council which coordinates and develops strategic plans, performance
plans, and performance reports as required by law for the Agency. In addition, OCFO
participates in numerous Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-led E-Gov initiatives such
as the Financial Management and Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business, and has
interagency agreements with (DoD) and USDA for processing agency payroll and travel
transactions, respectively. OCFO also participates with the DOC's Bureau of Census in
maintaining the Federal Assistance Awards Data System (FAADS). OCFO also coordinates
appropriately with Congress and other Federal agencies, such as Department of Treasury, OMB,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the General Services Administration (GSA).
Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM)
EPA is committed to working with Federal partners that focus on improving management and
accountability throughout the Federal government. The Agency provides leadership and
expertise to government-wide activities in various areas of human resources, grants
administration, contracts management, and Homeland Security. These activities include specific
collaboration efforts with Federal agencies and departments through:
• Chief Human Capital Officers, a group of senior leaders that discuss human capital
initiatives across the Federal government;
• Legislative and Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other Federal agency
representatives who assist Office of Personnel and Management in developing plans and
policies for training and development across the government; and
• The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the principal interagency forum for monitoring
and improving the Federal acquisition system. The Council also is focused on
promoting the President's specific initiatives and policies in all aspects of the acquisition
system.
879
-------
The Agency is participating in government-wide efforts to improve the effectiveness and
performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify application and reporting
requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the public. This includes membership on
the Grants Policy Committee, the Grants Executive Board, and the Grants.gov Users Group.
EPA also participates in the Federal Demonstration Partnership to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with research grants.
EPA is working with the OMB, General GSA, and the DOC's National Institute of Standards
and Technology to implement the Smart Card program.
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
To support EPA's overall mission, OEI collaborates with a number of other Federal agencies,
states, and Tribal governments on a variety of initiatives, including making government more
efficient and transparent, protecting human health and the environment, and assisting in
homeland security. OEI is primarily involved in the information technology (IT), information
management (EVI), and information security aspects of the projects it collaborates on.
The Chief Information Officer's (CIO) Council: The CIO Council is the principal
interagency forum for improving practices in the design, modernization, use, sharing, and
performance of Federal information resources. The Council develops recommendations for IT
management policies, procedures, and standards; identifies opportunities to share information
resources; and assesses and addresses the needs of the Federal IT workforce.
E-Rulemaking: EPA is the managing partner agency of the e-Rulemaking Program. E-
Rulemaking's mission addresses two areas: to improve public access to, understanding of, and
participation in regulation development, and to streamline government's management of, and
efficiency in, promulgating regulations. The e-Rulemaking Program's award-winning
Regulations.gov web site is a single web site where citizens can access and comment on all
proposed Federal regulations. Tens of millions of individuals have used the site to find, view,
and comment on proposed regulations. The e-Rulemaking Program's award-winning Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS - publicly accessible at www.regulations.gov) is an
electronic document repository where agencies post rulemaking and non-rulemaking documents
for public access and comment. As a result, the public can now access Federal Register
documents, supporting technical/legal/economic analyses, and public comments, most of which
were previously available only by physically visiting a Federal docket center. The e-Rulemaking
Program is partnering with more than 29 Departments and Independent Agencies, comprised of
180 bureaus, and boards, representing more than 90 percent of the Federal rules promulgated
annually.
The National Environmental Exchange Network (EN): The EN is a partnership among states,
tribes, and EPA. It is revolutionizing the exchange of environmental information by allowing
these Partners to share data efficiently and securely over the Internet. This approach is providing
real-time access to higher quality data while saving time and resources, for all of the Partners.
Leadership for the EN is provided by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which
880
-------
is co-chaired by OEI and a State partner. The ENLC works with representatives from the EPA,
state environmental agencies, and tribal organizations to manage the Exchange Network.
Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS):
ACE is the system being built by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to ensure that its
customs agents have the information they need to decide how to handle goods and merchandise
being shipped into, or out of, the United States. ITDS is the organizational framework by which
all government agencies with import/export responsibilities participate in the development of the
ACE system. ACE will be a single, electronic point of entry for importers and exporters to
report required information to the appropriate agencies. It also will be the way those agencies
provide CBP with information about potential imports/exports. ACE eliminates the need,
burden, and cost of paper reporting. It also allows importers and exporters to report the same
information to multiple Federal agencies with a single submission.
EPA has the responsibility and legal authority to make sure pesticides, toxic chemicals, vehicles
and engines, ozone-depleting substances, and other commodities entering the country meet our
environmental, human health, and safety standards. EPA's ongoing collaboration with CBP on
the ACE/ITDS project will greatly improve information exchange between EPA and CBP. As a
result, Customs officers at our nation's borders will have the information they need to admit
products that meet our environmental regulations, and to interdict goods or products that are
hazardous or illegal. EPA's work on ACE/ITDS builds on the technical leadership developed by
the Central Data Exchange and Exchange Network (CDX/EN). Applying the CDX/EN
technology offers all agencies participating in ACE the opportunity to improve the quality,
timeliness, and accessibility of their data at lower cost. At least five agencies have expressed
interest in the CDX/EN technology as a way to exchange data.
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Support: EPA's Automated
Security Self-Evaluation and Reporting Tool (ASSERT) provides Federal managers with the
information they need, from an enterprise perspective, to make timely and informed decisions
regarding the level of security implemented on their information resources. It provides the
reports and information those managers need to protect their critical cyber infrastructure and
privacy information. It helps agencies understand and assess their security risks, monitor
corrective actions and provide standardized and automated FISMA reports. Federal agencies
using EPA's FISMA Reporting Solution, and ASSERT, include: EPA, Export-Import Bank
(EXIM), GSA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the Social Security
Administration (SSA)
Geospatial Information: EPA works extensively with DOI, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the USD A, the DHS and over
20 other Federal agencies through the activities of the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) and the OMB Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB). OEI leads several key initiatives
within the FGDC and GeoLoB, and is one of only two agencies (the other being the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency) that participate in the Coordinating Committee, Steering
Committee, and Executive Steering Committee of the FGDC, and the Federal Geospatial
Advisory Committee. A key component of this work is developing and implementing the
881
-------
infrastructure to support a comprehensive array of national spatial data - data that can be
attached to and portrayed on maps. This work has several key applications, including ensuring
that human health and environmental conditions are represented in the appropriate contexts,
supporting the assessment of environmental conditions, and supporting emergency first
responders and other homeland security situations. Through programs like the EPA National
Information Exchange Network, EPA also works closely with its state and Tribal partners to
ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies supporting the efficient and cost
effective sharing of geographically based data and services.
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS): OEI works with the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) to lead EPA's involvement in the GEOSS initiative. Other
partners in this initiative are: The U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), and a significant
number of other Federal agencies, including NASA, NOAA, USGS, HHS, Department of
Energy (DoE), DoD, USDA, Smithsonian, National science Foundation (NSF), State, and
Department of Transportation (DOT). Under the ten-year strategic plan, the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 2005, OEI and ORD are leading EPA's development of the
environmental component of the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), which will be the
U.S. Federal contribution to the international GEOSS effort. Earth observation data, models, and
decision-support systems will play an increasingly important role in finding solutions for
complex problems, including adaptation to climate change.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Operating under Executive Order No. 13508, EPA is working to
help restore the Chesapeake Bay. Federal Partners in this initiative are: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USGS; U.S. Forest Service; National Park
Service; and the U.S. Navy (representing Department of Defense). The States of New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia, are also participating in the effort. Using the Exchange Network (EPA's existing
network facilitating data sharing among and with the states and tribes), OEI will develop a
similar resource for the agencies working on the Chesapeake Bay, and will couple it with geo-
positioning technologies.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
The EPA Inspector General is a member of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of Federal Inspectors General (IG), GAO,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CIGIE coordinates and improves the way IGs
conduct audits, investigations and internal operations. The CIGIE also promotes joint projects of
government-wide interest, and reports annually to the President on the collective performance of
the OIG community. The OIG Computer Crimes Division coordinates computer crime activities
with other law enforcement organizations such as the FBI, Secret Service, and Department of
Justice. In addition, the OIG participates with various inter-governmental audit forums and
professional associations to exchange information, share best practices, and obtain/provide
training. The OIG further promotes collaboration among EPA's partners and stakeholders in the
application of technology, information, resources, and law enforcement efforts through its
outreach activities. The EPA OIG initiates and participates in individual collaborative audits,
882
-------
evaluations and investigations with OIGs of agencies with an environmental mission such as the
DOT and USD A, and with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as prescribed
by the IG Act, as amended. The OIG also promotes public awareness of opportunities to report
possible fraud, waste, and abuse through the OIG Hotline.
883
-------
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Introduction
The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the Inspector General to identify the most
serious management challenges facing EPA, briefly assess the Agency's progress in addressing
them, and report annually. In FY 2008, EPA's Office of Inspector General revised its definition
of a management challenge to distinguish it from an internal control weakness. A weakness is a
deficiency in the design or operation of a program, function, or activity, which the Agency can
correct. In contrast, a management challenge is a lack of capability derived from internal self-
imposed or externally imposed constraints that prevent an organization from reacting effectively
to a changing environment. Addressing a management challenge may require assistance from
outside of EPA and take years to fully resolve. The discussion that follows summarizes the
Agency's response to each of the management challenges that EPA's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) reported to EPA's Administrator in its April 28, 2009 memorandum, EPA's Key
Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2009, and the Major Management Challenges identified
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in March 2009.
EPA has established a mechanism for identifying and addressing its key management challenges.
As part of its Federal Management Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process, EPA senior
managers meet with representatives from EPA's OIG, GAO, and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to hear their views on EPA's key management challenges. EPA managers also
use audits, reviews, and program evaluations conducted internally and by GAO, OMB, and OIG
to assess program effectiveness and identify potential management issues. EPA recognizes that
management challenges, if not addressed adequately, may prevent the Agency from effectively
meeting its mission. EPA remains committed to addressing all management issues in a timely
manner and will address them to the fullest extent of our authority.
1. Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues
Summary of Challenge: According to GAO, the federal government's approach to climate
change has been ad hoc and is not well coordinated across government agencies. For example,
the federal government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal research dollars
toward the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. EPA, as well as other
agencies, has been slow to implement recommendations.
Agency Response: Over the last year and during the first few months of the Obama
Administration, EPA has taken several important actions to address climate change. Currently,
EPA plays a key role in developing and implementing President Obama's ambitious climate
change agenda. For instance, the Agency is participating in strategic discussions and providing
technical advice and analysis on the full range of domestic climate policies and technologies.
This includes cap-and-trade; transportation; energy efficiency and renewable energy; and new
technologies, such as carbon capture and storage.
884
-------
Additionally, EPA is taking regulatory actions to address climate change and continuing to
implement its ongoing voluntary partnership programs. In October 2009, EPA issued a
regulation establishing, for the first time, a nationwide mandatory greenhouse gas reporting
program for large sources of greenhouse gases and fuel suppliers, which account for about 85
percent of national emissions. Reporting under this program is expected to begin in 2011. In
July 2008, EPA proposed regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act ensuring a protective
regulatory framework for commercial-scale facilities that sequester carbon dioxide in geologic
formations. EPA is responding to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA
and has recently issued under the Clean Air Act a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public
health and welfare and that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that threat. EPA, in
conjunction with DOT, plans to issue new greenhouse gas emission standards for light vehicles
in the spring of 2010. EPA is also developing new greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty
vehicles and is considering appropriate regulatory actions for other transportation sources, in
response to several petitions which call for the Agency to address these sources. EPA also
proposed a Renewable Fuel Standard as revised by the Energy Independent and Security Act,
requiring the United States to incorporate 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including requirements
for advanced and cellulosic fuels, into its fuel supply by 2022. EPA has provided extensive
technical advice and economic modeling on the major climate and energy bills passed by the
House and introduced in the Senate.
Recognizing that climate change cuts across many programs and offices within the Agency,
senior leadership is taking steps to expand and improve communication and coordination on
emerging climate change issues. Coordination mechanisms have been established among EPA
offices working on climate change, including daily planning calls, regular meetings at the
Deputy Administrator level, and extensive outreach across offices and with the EPA regions.
These processes will ensure that the Agency receives information and input, draws effectively on
its resources, and provides useful information to its stakeholders around the country. EPA has
also identified two High Priority Performance Goals to improve the country's ability to measure
and control GHG emissions. Specifically, EPA will ensure that data collected for the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is made publically available in a timely fashion, and that they
implement regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the
United States starting with model year 2012.
Finally, EPA continues to deliver on all commitments under its ongoing partnership programs to
reduce greenhouse gases, focused on energy efficiency, transportation, and other sectors.
Experience and knowledge gained through these programs is also informing EPA's input into the
broader climate policy discussion.
2. Improving Implementation of the Clean Air Act
Summary of Challenge: GAO reports that EPA faces many challenges related to
implementation of the Clean Air Act, including those related to coordination with other federal
agencies, analyses of health impacts from air pollution, and delays in regulating mercury and
885
-------
other air toxics. EPA also faces challenges relating to numerous regulatory proposals that have
been overturned or remanded by the courts.
Agency Response: Over the years, GAO has conducted various studies that identified key
challenges EPA faces in implementing the Clean Air Act and made recommendations intended
to enhance the effectiveness of its clean air program. The Agency has devoted substantial
resources to addressing GAO's recommendations and ensuring the effective implementation of
clean air programs, and it is making substantial progress. Advances include working with the
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee to ensure transparency. Additionally, the
Agency is using the best possible science in its decision-making processes. The Agency is
working to expand toxics monitoring in affected communities, quantifying and understanding the
sources of uncertainty in its benefit analyses, and taking action on rules that have been rejected
by the Courts.
3. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure/Reducing Pollution in the Nation's Waters
Summary of Challenge: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), EPA is responsible for assisting water and wastewater facilities in meeting their water
treatment requirements. Many drinking water and wastewater systems across the country are
unable to maintain compliance with federal water standards due to repairs and new
constructions. While EPA has established programs to help address infrastructure costs, such as
the Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure and National Alliance for Water Efficiency, these
programs do not represent a cohesive national strategy for solving the problem of aging and
deteriorating infrastructure.
Both OIG and GAO have cited water infrastructure as a challenge for the Agency. OIG believes
EPA needs to take the lead in developing a coherent federal strategy, within the limits of its
statutory authorities and responsibilities, to assess the investment requirements and work with
states and local governments to organize resources to meet water and wastewater infrastructure
needs. GAO notes that, while EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies and others to
reduce pollution in the nation's waters, many pollution sources are difficult to monitor and
regulate. Among the most daunting water pollution control problems, the nation's water utilities
face billions of dollars in upgrades to aging and deteriorating infrastructures that, left
unaddressed, can affect the quality of our water.
Agency Response: EPA is doing everything possible within its authority, responsibilities, and
resource constraints to change the way the country views, values, manages, and uses water and
wastewater infrastructure. Its Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Initiative continues to be a top
Agency priority and has been active in the past year. While, long-term sustainability will
ultimately occur at the local level, EPA has provided and continues to provide national
leadership. As part of that strategy, we are working to ensure that federal dollars provided
through the State Revolving Funds act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning,
improvements in technical, financial, and managerial capacity, and the design, construction, and
on-going management of sustainable water infrastructure.
886
-------
For example, EPA continues to partner with six of the major professional associations for water
and wastewater to promote the ten attributes of an Effectively Managed Utility. This first-of-its-
kind national collaboration enables utilities to operate under a common management framework,
which is helping the sector move toward sustainability in a unified manner. Building on existing
efforts, the collaborating organizations have recently released a set of case studies that document
the success of a number of utilities who have used the Effective Utility Management (EUM)
framework. The EUM "Primer" has also been adapted into a web-based tool and presentation to
make it more available to utilities across the country.
Recognizing that water efficiency has significant implications for infrastructure, EPA has
continued to pursue and expand the WaterSense program, launched in 2006. The WaterSense
label makes it easy for consumers to find products and services that save water while ensuring
performance, thereby reducing the burden on infrastructure and mitigating water availability
challenges. It also helps to build a national consciousness of the value of water and water
services, which is essential to the national awareness and acceptance that everyone must help pay
for our infrastructure needs.
EPA has also reached out to other federal agencies and departments to work together on
infrastructure sustainability. In collaboration with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the
Agency recently released a set of case studies on Asset Management, an area of common interest
for water and highway infrastructure. EPA also has signed a partnership agreement with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and DOT that focuses on sustainable
communities and smart growth. This new federal partnership could have significant
interconnections with water and wastewater infrastructure in some communities.
Other recent activities taken under the SI Initiative include:
• Actively working with a long list of partners to implement our Green Infrastructure
Action Plan. The focus of this work is on green infrastructure approaches to managing
wet weather. Among other activities, the Action Plan aims to better document costs,
benefits, and effectiveness of practices; incorporate green infrastructure into Long Term
Control Plans for combined sewer overflows; and foster implementation in communities
across the country.
• Initiating an effort to study how the Agency can effectively increase the engagement of
local officials and decision-makers on SI issues. This effort will result in an outreach
plan to be implemented in the coming year.
In these and other ways, EPA has taken a leading role with federal partners and has worked to
increase public awareness and appreciation of the need for sustainable water infrastructure.
Expanding EPA's efforts would require increased authority and resources.
887
-------
4. Chesapeake Bay Program
Summary of Challenge: EPA 's Chesapeake Bay Program Office is responsible for overseeing
the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, North America's largest and most biologically diverse
estuary. Despite EPA 's efforts—which include providing scientific information to its federal,
state, and local partners for setting resource allocations; revising water quality standards; and
establishing stricter wastewater treatment discharge limits—the Agency continues to face
significant challenges in meeting water quality goals. OIG notes that the remaining challenges
include managing land development, increasing implementation of agricultural conservation
practices, monitoring and expediting the installation of nutrient removal technology at
wastewater treatment plants, seeking greater reduction in air emissions, and identifying
consistent and sustained funding sources to support tributary strategy implementation. While
EPA is responsible for monitoring and assessing progress, its partners will need to implement
practices to reduce loads. OIG believes EPA will need to institute management controls to
ensure that the promised reductions are realistic and achievable. EPA should then use its
reporting responsibilities to advise Congress and the Chesapeake Bay community on the
partners' progress in meeting these commitments and identify funding shortfalls and other
impediments that will affect progress for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
Agency Response: EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a unique regional partnership that
directs and conducts the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by bringing together local, state, and
federal governments, non-profit organizations, watershed residents, and academic institutions.
The CBP continues to respond to and implement OIG and GAO recommendations.
In spring 2009, the CBP office changed its management structure to better align the policy,
advisory, and technical committees and workgroups with the five goals of the Chesapeake 2000
Agreements: protect and restore fisheries; protect and restore vital habitats; protect and restore
water quality; maintain health watersheds; and foster stewardship. The new structure also aligns
with the Chesapeake Action Plan and provides a clear focus on the goals and outcomes that the
Agency is trying to achieve.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection
and Restoration, launching a "new era" of federal leadership and action to protect and restore the
Chesapeake Bay. The Order, which establishes a Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) that will
oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities, will help define the next
generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Bay. Additionally, the Order
describes changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions.
EPA chairs the FLC, which includes senior representatives of the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, Transportation, and well as other
agencies. On November 9, 2009, EPA and the other FLC agencies released a draft
comprehensive strategy for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed as called for in section 203 of the EO. Also in November 2009, EPA and other
agencies released individual reports on specific challenges in the Chesapeake Bay as required
888
-------
under section 202 of the EO. The agencies are engaged in a significant public outreach effort to
explain the strategy and reports and to hear directly from members of the public as to their
perspectives on the ideas contained in these documents.
EPA's recommended actions under the EO include:
• Development of watershed implementation plans by the six Bay watershed states and the
District of Columbia;
• Requiring the states and District to develop milestones detailing near-term actions and
loading reduction targets to evaluate progress toward water quality goals;
• Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to the
Chesapeake Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, new or
expanding sources of nutrient and/or sediment, and other pollutant sources as EPA deems
necessary; and
• Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
accelerate the adoption of conservation practices by agricultural interests in the Bay
watershed.
In May 2010, the FLC will release the final strategy responding to EO 13508. The strategy is
expected to include target dates and milestones for implementation of the actions being
undertaken by each FLC agency.
In fall 2010, the FLC will publish annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plans that describe how federal
funding will be put toward Bay restoration in the coming year. The plans will be accompanied
by an annual progress report. To strengthen accountability, the Committee will ensure that an
independent evaluator periodically reports on progress toward meeting the goals of the Order.
A centerpiece of EPA's activities is the implementation of the nation's largest and most complex
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. A TMDL is
essentially a plan that defines how much of a particular pollutant may be discharged in to a
particular waterbody while allowing the waterbody to meet its water quality standards and
designated uses. Through watershed implementation plans, EPA expects that the Bay states and
the District of Columbia will provide specific timelines for enhancing programs and
implementing actions to reduce pollution, with all measures needed to reach the TMDL pollution
load limits in place no later than 2025. EPA's High Priority Performance Goal is tied to the
development and submission of those watershed implementation plans.
By FY 2011, EPA expects the states and D.C. to divide their TMDL-allocated pollution
reductions to the local level so that counties, municipalities, conservation districts and watershed
organizations understand their role in meeting water quality goals. EPA expects that by 2017
pollution controls will be in place that should result in approximately 60 percent of the required
reductions.
889
-------
5. Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites
Summary of Challenge: EPA places increasing emphasis on the reuse of contaminated or once-
contaminated properties and has a performance measure to define a population of contaminated
sites that are ready for reuse. EPA faces "significant and increasing" challenges in this area,
however, due to the common practice of not removing all sources of contamination from
hazardous sites; a regulatory structure that places key responsibilities for monitoring and
enforcing the long-term safety of contaminated sites on non-EPA parties that may lack necessary
resources, information, and skill; changes in site risks as site conditions change over time; and
existing weaknesses in EPA 's oversight of the long-term safety of sites. EPA will continually
need to assess challenges it faces as well as challenges among the diverse group of non-EPA
parties it must work with to ensure sites are safely reused. To address the challenges, these
assessments should include consideration of new or expanded authorities and regulations,
organization structures, and dedicated funding and resources.
Agency Response: In its April 2009 report, OIG identified a number of concerns associated
with ensuring the long-term safety of contaminated sites, and EPA agrees with OIG's
recommendations.
OIG stated that "EPA's management of the long-term oversight and monitoring requirements for
the safe reuse of contaminated sites has lagged behind their marketing of site reuse opportunities
and showcase successes." Using a variety of tools, regions are working closely with prospective
users to ensure they understand the limitations associated with the site and use the site in a way
that prevents exposures. Comfort letters and Ready for Reuse determinations lay out any
limitations that need to be followed to ensure protectiveness. Some regions have official
processes for prospective users that ensure the reuse will be compatible with the remedy. In
addition, EPA works closely with state and local governments to ensure that mechanisms such as
institutional controls are maintained to permit safe reuse of sites. EPA also conducts 5-year
reviews at all sites to ensure continued remedy protection where waste is left in place.
OIG also notes that states were not financially prepared to take over their long-term monitoring
and maintenance responsibilities. The Agency is aware of a few instances in which states did
not have the funding needed to continue their responsibilities. Though state budgets have been
constrained, states have strived to maintain their responsibilities. Further, OIG specifies that
states failed to enforce cleanup agreements. EPA continually encourages state enforcement of
cleanup agreements, meeting with the Association of State and Territorial Waste Management
Officials member states and offering technical assistance. In response to OIG's concern that
EPA is not following Superfund site deletion guidance or 5-year review procedures, the Agency
has new procedures and processes in place to ensure that deletion actions comply with the
National Contingency Plan and EPA guidance. Additionally, current procedures remain in place
to ensure appropriate implementation of 5-year review guidance. Finally, OIG believes that EPA
does not have systems in place to determine whether a site cleanup is in noncompliance. The
Agency is working to finalize the draft Guidance on Tracking Substantial Noncompliance with
890
-------
CERCLA Enforcement Instruments in CERCLIS. Once the guidance is issued, regions began
entering compliance tracking data into CERCLIS in the fourth quarter of FY 2009.
6. Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and other Hazardous Waste Sites
Summary of Challenge: In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund, which gave the federal government
the authority to ensure the cleanup of hazardous waste sites both on private and public land.
GAO believes that declining appropriations (when adjusted for inflation) have slowed the pace
of cleanups. Further, GAO notes that EPA has not implemented a 1980 mandate requiring
businesses to demonstrate that they can pay for potential environmental cleanups, that is, to
provide financial assurance. GAO has recommended that EPA (1) ensure that financial
assurances are in place for sites that manufacture or use toxic chemicals; (2) improve the
institutional controls at contaminated sites; (3) ensure that owners of underground storage tanks
maintain access to adequate financial resources and state insurance funds provide reliable
coverage for cleanups; and (4) establish a formal structure to centrally track and monitor the
status of cleanup efforts.
Agency Response: EPA recognizes the need for program improvements in the areas GAO has
identified and has efforts underway to address GAO's concerns regarding the pace of cleanup at
Superfund and other hazardous waste sites.
In July 2009, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register identifying the classes of facilities
for which financial responsibility requirements will first be developed and also identified
additional classes on January 6, 2010. Next, a proposed and final rule for these classes will be
developed. This substantial regulatory effort is scheduled to continue through 2012.
EPA released a strategy to ensure institutional control (1C) implementation at Superfund sites in
September 2004, developed an 1C tracking system to ensure that sites have appropriate ICs in
place, and provided public access to 1C information at Superfund sites. EPA is also developing
guidance on implementation and assurance plans for ICs. These efforts recognize that there is a
significant role for local and state governments in the planning, implementing, monitoring and
enforcing of ICs relied upon in cleanup of many contaminated sites. EPA also supports several
Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials subcommittees that focus on
ICs and long-term stewardship.
EPA acknowledges the importance of adequate financial responsibility coverage for cleanup and
has already taken steps to address GAO's recommendation. For instance to ensure compliance
with the Energy Policy Act, states and EPA inspectors are required to verify financial
responsibility as part of the mandatory 3-year inspection requirement, for underground storage
tanks. EPA is also enhancing its oversight of state funds through additional guidance and
consultation.
891
-------
With respect to GAO's last recommendation, EPA already tracks Superfund cleanup efforts
through its CERCLIS database, which contains information (including site contaminant
information) on all Superfund sites.
7. Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
Summary of Challenge: GAO notes that EPA 's ability to protect public health and the
environment depends on credible and timely assessment of the risks posed by toxic chemicals.
Such chemical assessments are the cornerstone of scientifically sound environmental decisions,
policies, and regulations under a variety of statutes, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). EPA 's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which contains assessments of more
that 500 toxic chemicals, is at a serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has been unable
to keep its existing assessments current or to complete assessments of important chemicals of
concerns. In a number of reports, GAO identified actions EPA needs to take to (1) enhance its
ability under TSCA to obtain health and safety information from the chemical industry and (2)
streamline and increase the transparency of IRIS.
Agency Response: GAO identified "Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and
Controlling Toxic Chemicals" as a high-risk area in its January 2009 High-Risk Series. In the
report, GAO states that the Agency needs to take actions to streamline and increase the
transparency of the development of human health assessments under the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) Program and enhance its ability under the Toxic Substance Control
Act (TSCA) to obtain health and safety information from the chemical industry. EPA
acknowledges the issues that GAO has raised and has already begun to address concerns.
The IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and
qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to environmental
contaminants. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based
human health assessments to support Agency regulatory activities. In May 2009, the Agency
announced reforms to IRIS that will revitalize the program and ensure its scientific quality,
integrity, transparency, and timeliness. Specifically, the Agency has developed a new IRIS
assessment development process that includes a streamlined review schedule for most chemicals
to ensure that the majority of assessments are posted on the IRIS database within 2 years of the
start date. In addition, interagency comments will now be part of the public record, increasing
the transparency of the process. Lastly, the President's FY2011 Budget maintains increases to
funding and staff initially provided in FY2010 to enable more assessments to be completed.
GAO also raised concerns about TSCA. TSCA authorizes EPA to obtain information on
chemicals and regulate chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the
environment. The Agency has taken major steps to strengthen its chemicals management
program under TSCA. For instance, the Administrator identified better management of chemical
risk as one of her top five priorities. To support this priority, the Agency proposed in its 2010
President's Budget submission, a significant investment to support EPA's toxics program. Key
elements of the Administrator's emerging strategy for improving EPA's ability to reduce
892
-------
chemical risks include completing long-standing efforts to obtain needed chemical hazard and
exposure data, accelerating progress in assessing such data to identify chemicals posing the
greatest and most immediate risks, and using the full array of EPA's current regulatory tools to
reduce known chemical risks.
8. Improving Agency-wide Management
Summary of Challenge: EPA has launched various initiatives to address cross-cutting general
management issues, including environmental enforcement and compliance, human capital
management, and the development and use of environmental information. However, these
initiatives have generally fallen considerably short of their intended results.
Agency Response:
Environmental Enforcement and Compliance
In FY 2004, the Agency piloted the State Review Framework (SRF) to address concerns about
consistency in the minimum level of enforcement activity across states and the oversight of state
programs by EPA regions. The SRF uses 12 core elements to assess enforcement activities
across three key programs: the Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V), the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. The 12 core elements include data completeness, data
accuracy, timeliness of data entry, completion of work plan commitments, inspection coverage,
completeness of inspection reports, identification of alleged violations, identification of
significant noncompliance, ensuring return to compliance, timely and appropriate enforcement,
calculation of gravity and economic benefit penalty components, and final assessed penalties and
their collection.
During 2007-2008, EPA evaluated the first full round of the SRF to identify ways to streamline
the time and effort of the reviews and opportunities for further improvements. Based on the
reviews and the evaluation, the Agency identified four areas that were recurring issues across
states and programs: data entry and reporting; significant non-compliance and high priority
violations identification; timely enforcement; and calculation and documentation of penalties. In
September 2008, the Agency made key improvements and initiated Round 2, which included
additional and enhanced training for regions and states, streamlined reporting through a standard
template, clearer elements, improved metrics, more explicit guidance on incorporating local
agencies into reviews, better understanding of where consistency is important, a streamlined
review of reports, tracking and management of the implementation of recommendations, and
additional steps for communication and coordination between regions and states.
The current SRF outlines the process for uniformly addressing significant problems identified in
state programs. First, the region and state define the state's attributes and deficiencies and
develop a schedule for implementing needed changes. Second, the region and state jointly
develop a plan to address performance, using established mechanisms such as Performance
893
-------
Partnership Agreements, Performance Partnership Grants, or categorical grant agreements to
codify the plans. Third, the region and state manage and monitor implementation of the plan to
ensure progress as planned and to identify and address issues as they arise. EPA completed 15
SRF reviews in 2009.
In 2009, EPA began to make the SRF reports publicly available by putting all Round 1 reports on
the internet. EPA will make Round 2 reports available on the internet as they are finalized. EPA
is also making data available on the status of program improvements identified in the SRF
reviews. By making this information public, EPA has increased the accountability of
environmental enforcement programs.
EPA has made substantial progress in planning and priority setting with states and in using the
SRF to enhance its ability to evaluate and oversee state enforcement activities. The Agency
believes that the SRF will help maintain a level of consistency across state programs, ensuring
that states meet minimum standards and implement fair and consistent enforcement of
environmental laws and consistent protection of human health and the environment across the
country. The Agency plans to use the "SRF Tracker" to analyze trends in findings and track
corrective actions to report on the results of the SRF.
Human Capital
As part of ongoing resource management efforts, EPA has been exploring how to maximize the
productivity of its limited staff and other resources. During each year's budget process, EPA
reviews the staffing funding, levels, and allocation to address all activities. OIG and GAO
routinely report that EPA (and other agencies) need to increase the efficiency of resource use in
functional areas. Toward this end, EPA and many other federal agencies have begun to
specialize in particular functional areas and provide these services externally to other federal
agencies. For example, EPA has contracted with the Department of Defense for its payroll
services.
In February 2009, the Agency procured contractor to conduct a workload benchmarking study of
six major functions that it shares with other federal agencies, including regulatory development,
scientific research, enforcement, financial management, environmental monitoring, and
permitting.
The study is designed to build EPA's understanding of the determinants other Agencies consider
in setting staffing levels for these functions. The analysis will also help EPA expand its
understanding of workload drivers, major products, and staffing allocation alternatives to
consider in these six functional areas. The benchmarking may highlight areas that need
additional review if disparities surface, or it may point to possible pilot efforts. This enhanced
understanding will allow EPA to continue to better determine the next steps in improving
efficiency, targeting resources to the most critical priorities, and providing critical background
information for Agency leadership to consider when making budget allocation decisions.
894
-------
Environmental Information
EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE) provides peer-reviewed scientific environmental
indicators on status and trends of the nation's environment that are important to the Agency. The
ROE effort is a cross-agency and interagency program with strong collaboration and partnership
between EPA program offices and regions. The indicators and associated gaps and limitations
provide valuable input to planning and decision making in the Agency. To date, roughly a third
of the indicators included in EPA's 2008 ROE are used as the basis of the quantified strategic
performance metrics established in the Agency's current (2006-11) and prospective (2009-14)
Strategic Plans. ROE collaborators continue to look for new data and information sources to
expand the number of indicators and have implemented routine updating procedures to ensure
that decision makers have the most current information available.
9. Threat and Risk Assessment
Summary of Challenge: OIG notes that, in the past year, EPA has not developed and applied
threat and risk assessments in decision making. According to OIG, relative threats and risks to
human health and the environment are not assessed and decisions based on the highest priority.
As discussed in its recent reports on EPA 's enforcement and air programs, OIG believes the
Agency's environmental laws focus on a single media, goals are designed to implement separate
legislative mandates, and available technological solutions address specific pollutant sources.
In 2008, OIG stated that EPA needed to establish and implement a risk-based strategy to assess
threats to human health and the environment across media.
Agency Response: EPA confirms that its last comparative risk study was completed nearly 20
years ago. However, the Agency believes that the approach used at that time—to rank all
environmental risks in a very aggregate manner—is no longer useful. Current Agency analyses,
which look more deeply into environmental threats, are more useful in decision making. For
instance, the Agency is conducting a forward-looking study that explores the relative risks, costs,
feasibility, and the synergisms of controlling various air pollutants. The Agency is also nearing
completion of the 812 Prospective Study, which reviews the costs and benefits of various future
actions to control air pollution. Additionally, the Agency is working with a number of
watersheds, including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and national estuaries, to take a holistic
perspective, considering cross-media issues and planning actions with the greatest benefit. The
Agency has also developed a system that helps identify where to focus permitting and methods
that use measurement tools to focus on enforcement priorities.
EPA has several other efforts underway, such as the Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE) program, identification of environmental justice communities, sector
strategies, environmental management systems, smart growth, and green building to address risk
more holistically across media. The Agency believes these initiatives encourage a more
disaggregated approach to identifying risk that will enhance its ability to focus its resources on
the highest risk. EPA will continue to use a variety of means, including its strategic planning and
budgeting processes, to incorporate risk and threat assessment in its decision-making.
895
-------
10. Meeting Homeland Security Requirements
Summary of Challenge: OIG continues to raise concerns about EPA 's homeland security
efforts and actions. Although EPA has taken actions to strengthen homeland security, OIG
reports show that the Agency's plans for responding to incidents of national significance do not
(1) document the methodology used to determine the required resources, (2) address
coordination with other federal, state or local emergency response agencies, (3) contain
designation or process descriptions for handling crisis communications, (4) include key
milestones for completing critical homeland security responsibilities, and (5) establish
accountable entities, within EPA, responsible for completing critical homeland security
requirements. OIG states that the Agency has not yet implemented recommendations outlined in
its 2008 report. Additionally, OIG believes that many of the Agency's actions to address
homeland security (e.g., implementing the Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, and a national
equipment tracking system) are behind schedule. OIG notes that effectively managing its
homeland security program will require the Agency to think differently about how it responds,
coordinates with others, and communicates in nationally significant emergencies.
Agency Response: EPA has a Homeland Security Work Plan, updated annually, which
identifies the Agency's homeland security focus and efforts in four homeland security priority
areas: water security, decontamination, emergency response, and internal preparedness. These
priority areas have been identified as a result of specific responsibilities assigned to EPA by
external entities and the Agency's homeland security requirements and assignments.
As part of this plan EPA developed three tiers of information to be responsive to its homeland
security mandates. This information forms the basis for understanding EPA's highest homeland
security priorities and serves to assess short, medium, and long-term goals and results. The three
tiers are:
• Desired End States - describe the final outcome of homeland security projects or efforts
once EPA believes it has met the President's or other externally imposed directives.
• Desired Results - reflect specific programmatic areas through which EPA seeks to make
progress toward achieving the desired end state.
• Action Items - reflect specific program and regional office plans (e.g., projects or
efforts) to progress toward desired results and ultimately reach EPA's desired end state.
Although some regions and special teams currently have systems in place to manage their
equipment inventories, EPA acknowledges the need for a national equipment inventory to ensure
that the Agency can identify and access appropriate equipment in support of nationally
significant events.
To address findings and recommendations for the national equipment tracking system, EPA
expedited development of the Equipment Module of the Emergency Management Portal, a
warehouse management and equipment tracking system. All regions and special teams are
required to use the new system for tracking emergency response equipment. This application has
been improved over several versions; Version 6.1, scheduled for November 2009, will complete
896
-------
the off-line synchronization option for those warehouses with poor connectivity. The completion
date for the tracking warehouses for emergency response equipment was December 21, 2009.
In November 2009, the Agency issued its National Approach to Response Plan and completed
the corrective actions that address recommendations in OIG's Report No 2008-P00055-167
"EPA Should Continue to Improve Its National Emergency Response Planning." EPA will
continue to use its Homeland Security Priority Work Plan to systematically assess homeland
security priorities and projects and achieve its homeland security objectives.
11. Oversight of Delegation of States
Summary of Challenge: A critical management challenge for EPA is overseeing its delegation
of programs to the states, mostly due to differences between state and federal policies,
interpretations, strategies, and priorities. While EPA has improved its oversight, particularly in
priority setting and enforcement planning with states, the Agency needs accurate data and
consistent policy interpretation to ensure effective oversight of all delegated regulatory and
voluntary programs. OIG believes that EPA must address the limitations in the availability,
quality, and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data.
Agency Response: As OIG notes, state oversight is a very complex and changeable arena.
Through federal statutes, implementing regulations, and program design, states are allowed
flexibility in how they manage and implement environmental programs. Within EPA, national
program managers are directly responsible for state oversight of individual programs. The
Agency has committees, workgroups, special projects and initiatives to continuously improve
Agency programs delegated to states.
To provide more collaboration at the national level, the Agency, working with states, established
the Partnership Council of the Office of Water and States (PCOWS). PCOWS addresses the
challenges of increasing workloads, pending demands of energy and climate change, and
declining resources. It also tests the early and on-going engagement of states in planning,
budgeting, and implementation activities for the national water program. As the first national
level forum for the discussion of strategic priorities with the states, PCOWS will ensure that core
and key program activities are given appropriate priority in budget decisions and identify
opportunities for work sharing for priority activities and maximizing resources.
EPA has made improvements in its enforcement priority setting, planning, and state oversight.
Currently, using the State Review Framework (SRF), the Agency conducts oversight reviews to
evaluate the performance of state compliance and enforcement programs. The SRF enables
assessment of program effectiveness and identification of areas for management improvements
that is consistent across EPA regions and states. In October 2009, the Administrator released a
Clean Water Act Enforcement Action Plan aimed to focus Federal and State enforcement to the
most significant sources and most serious violations, strengthen state oversight and improve
transparency and accountability to the public. This action plan will result in a redesigned
897
-------
enforcement program with clear expectations for state performance, joint accountability metrics
and reporting on performance to the public.
In July 2009, the Administrator renewed the Agency's commitment to use the National
Environmental Information Exchange, which both EPA and states view as a critical component
of cost effective exchange of data and information between EPA, states, and the public.
12. Voluntary Programs
Summary of Challenge: OIG reviews of voluntary programs that address air toxics,
greenhouse gas reduction, pollution prevention, etc. indicate performance and data verification
for voluntary programs is a systemic problem for EPA. According to OIG, without
comprehensive, valid, and reliable performance data, EPA can not ensure that programs are
efficiently and effectively providing intended and claimed environmental benefits. EPA needs to
determine the extent to which voluntary programs can effectively address environmental and
human health challenges.
Agency Response: EPA programs and regions support a range of regulatory and voluntary
programs designed to help achieve environmental result (e.g., improving air quality, lowering
greenhouse gases, reducing chemical risk). Currently, there are over 40 officially designated
voluntary (Now called partnership) programs administered by EPA at the federal level (more
exists at the state and local levels). Voluntary (Partnership) programs can enhance or
complement regulatory programs, and help to address significant issues difficult not amenable to
traditional regulatory approaches.
The Agency has developed guidelines on partnership program design, measurement, marketing,
and evaluation. However, most voluntary programs are managed by individual national program
managers who use various methods to track and report program effectiveness and impact on the
environment. EPA's Innovation Action Council has identified program management
improvements including codifying minimum requirements for program design and operation;
making new program notification mandatory; defining categories of Partnership Programs; and
developing new guidelines for evaluating a partnership program. The Agency has disseminated
this information, and assessed the degree to which the improvements are being implemented.
Support and training are being offered to programs which have not yet met the requirements of
the improvements.
According to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, "There
is a widespread misperception that EPA's primary stewardship tool consists of voluntary
partnership programs. The reality is, however, that the Agency has many additional assets to
promote stewardship, such as regulatory programs, grants, information, public speeches, and in-
house operations. EPA achieves its most effective results when it uses these tools in concert." 13
13 http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/reports/pdf/2008-0328-everyones-business-fmal.pdf
898
-------
EPA is taking steps to improve performance information to determine the effectiveness of
partnership programs. For example, an interim evaluation of the Nanoscale Materials
Stewardship Program notes that as much as 90 percent of the different nanoscale materials that
are likely to be commercially available were not reported. The Agency's conclusion then was
that it had learned a great deal about nanoscale materials in commerce, but the program did not
provide the needed breadth of health and safety data and the participation rate was lower than
hoped. In response, EPA is developing a mandatory reporting rule under TSCA Section 8(a) to
require companies to report data on existing uses, production volumes, specific physical
properties, chemical and structural characteristics, methods of manufacture and processing,
exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. EPA is also developing a
mandatory test rule under TSCA Section 4 to require companies to test a number of
manufactured nanomaterials for health and environmental effects. The information submitted
under these regulations will further EPA's understanding of the uses and potential risks of
manufactured nanomaterials, and strengthen the scientific basis for taking appropriate risk
management actions. Another example of continuous improvement of performance information
can be found with the pollution prevention (P2) programs. While EPA agrees that not all P2
programs had standard operating procedures in place for performance data at the time of the
audit, many did. The program is currently working to incorporate lessons learned across the
program and develop comprehensive standard operating procedures and QA/QC practices for
performance information.
13. EPA's Organization and Infrastructure
Summary of Challenge: Since EPA was formed in 1970, a comprehensive study has not been
completed to analyze EPA 's mission, organization, and the related number and location of
employees needed to most effectively carry out the Agency's mission at the least cost. OIG
believes EPA remains challenged in maintaining the right number of people in the right places to
most effectively accomplish its mission and achieve strategic goals. OIG recommends that, with
the assistance of external parties (oversight committees), EPA conduct a comprehensive study to
assess its mission, workforce, and infrastructure requirements in order to accomplish its mission
and reduce operating costs.
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges OIG's concerns and agrees that the Agency could
benefit from a comprehensive review of its organizational structure as it relates to the number
and location of employees needed to effectively accomplish its mission. EPA does not have the
resources nor the authority to conduct such a broad review. However, it has conducted periodic
nationwide assessments to identify cost-saving opportunities as a result of mission and personnel
changes, including most recently, a November 2009 rent efficiencies exercise that identified
several opportunities for space consolidation and right-sizing at locations across the country.
The resulting report is under review by Agency senior management. .
Currently, EPA maintains an inventory of buildings—owned and leased—that supports its
current mission. Through its master space planning process, the Agency will continue to identify
and fulfill its long-term facility requirements. The Agency plans to establish a senior level
899
-------
workgroup that will examine space management and usage at Agency facilities and identify
opportunities for greater efficiencies from a mission, workforce and infrastructure perspective.
Under the Space Consolidation and Rent Avoidance Project, the Agency has released
approximately 228,000 square feet of space, resulting in an annual rent avoidance of more than
$7.3 million. In FY 2010 and 2011, the Agency plans to release approximately 99,300 square
feet of additional space in headquarters and regional facilities for an estimated annual rent
avoidance of nearly $3.9 million.
14. Management of Stimulus Funds
Summary of Challenge: EPA received $7.2 billion in ARRA funds for six existing programs: 1)
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), 2) Drinking Water SRF, 3) Hazardous Substance
Superfund, 4) Diesel Emissions Reduction, 5) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, and 6)
Brownfields. OIG acknowledges that the Agency has already taken steps to address ARRA
requirements. However, OIG believes EPA faces significant challenges in meeting all ARRA
requirements while at the same time carrying out ongoing environmental programs. For
instance, since most ARRA funds will be awarded through assistance agreements and contracts,
EPA 's grants and contracts personnel will have to manage stimulus grants and contracts in
addition to their normal workload. To reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds,
OIG indicates that EPA will need to assign sufficient, trained staff to ensure proper oversight of
grants and contracts.
Agency Response: From the passage of the act, the Agency agreed that "EPA faces significant
challenges in meeting all ARRA requirements while at the same time carrying out ongoing
environmental programs." The Agency is determined to meet these challenges and ensure that
the Recovery Act investments create jobs, meet environmental goals and that public funds are
obligated and expended responsibly and transparently.
The Agency has done considerable work to demonstrate effective management and oversight of
ARRA funds and activities. For instance, in accordance with OMB guidance, EPA created a
senior-level Steering Committee to oversee its ARRA strategy and implementation. The senior-
level Stimulus Steering Committee established subcommittees on grants, contracts, finance and
resources, performance measurement and other crucial areas composed of experienced staff to
raise, research and address challenges promptly. Coordinating through the principal steering
committee, EPA succeeded in obligating almost all of the program funds available, establishing
performance metrics, developing guidance for recipients on reporting and meeting additional
requirements of the Act such as Davis-Bacon, Recipient Reporting, and Buy American. These
subcommittees also worked to meet ambitious and detailed public reporting requests.
To ensure transparency and accountability of its ARRA activities, EPA also developed and
implemented a comprehensive ARRA Stewardship Plan that identifies potential programmatic
and administrative risks, details specific control activities to mitigate those risks, and specifically
defines Agency roles and responsibilities in performing and monitoring those activities. The plan
900
-------
addresses seven functional areas: grants management, interagency agreements, contracts,
payroll/human capital, budget execution, performance reporting, and financial reporting. The
risks identified in the Plan are based on the five GAO internal control standards and various
internal control objectives referenced in the OMB guidance. The Steering Committee receives
quarterly status reports on internal controls related to the oversight of ARRA funds.
The vast majority of funding for ARRA activities has been provided using grants and contracts
from existing programs that currently have strong internal controls. The Agency has put in place
additional internal controls for contracts and grants to address ARRA funds. The Agency issued
guidance on the award of ARRA contracts and grants (March and October), and interagency
agreements (April). EPA also developed a plan for a stakeholder outreach initiative that outlines
how the Agency will communicate information on ARRA contracts and grants opportunities to
potential customers and stakeholders (through instructional fact sheets, webinars, etc.). We
believe that the existing internal controls and the Stewardship Plan, will help the Agency ensure
proper oversight of ARRA funds for grants, contracts, and interagency agreements. The Agency
will periodically reassess the risks identified in the Stewardship Plan and make adjustments as
needed.
With regard to OIG's concerns about staff workload, and as noted in the Agency's response to
the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board's Contracts and Grants Staffing and
Qualification Survey, EPA generally has, at this time, sufficient trained resources to manage
ARRA grants and contracts. In making ARRA implementation our top priority, we have had to
disinvest in some of our non-ARRA grant and contract work. This includes, among other things,
delays in non-ARRA awards and closeouts, less frequent post-award monitoring and extending
milestones under our Grants Management Plan. The Agency will continue to carefully assess the
level of disinvestment to ensure it does not jeopardize our internal controls for effective grants
and contracts management.
15. Performance Measurement
Summary of Challenge: While EPA has been recognized for its efforts to align budgeting,
planning, and accounting systems to track and report resources, OIG believes the Agency
continues to face challenges in measuring the human health and environmental results of its
programs. OIG notes that program results are not immediately recognized or demonstrated
until years later, that linking environmental activities to outcomes is difficult due to external
factors beyond EPA 's control, and that performance measures often focus on program activities
instead of improvements to human health or the environment. Additionally, OIG indicates that
although the Report on the Environment provides a broad perspective on the condition of the
Nation's environment, the Agency still faces limitations, gaps, and challenges in gathering and
analyzing information on key environmental indicators. To address these concerns, OIG
recommends that the Agency focus on the logic of program design to ensure that programs and
processes are designed so that managers can measure, evaluate, and demonstrate results for
resources used, allow ing for transparency and accountability for program performance.
901
-------
Agency Response: EPA acknowledges the inherent difficulties in aligning environmental
information, performance measures, and results. However, the Agency has made performance
measurement improvement and performance management a high priority and is pursuing many
actions to address challenges.
EPA's program offices have the ultimate responsibility in designing their programs and
corresponding performance measures to assess results. The Agency continues to offer training
and technical assistance in logic modeling and program evaluation and design. Additionally, the
Agency has made significant strides in strengthening its performance management framework
and furthering access to and the quality of performance data to improve their utility for decision-
making. For example, senior managers can easily view progress on key performance measures
using "Measures Central," an Agency-wide database, and the Executive Management
Dashboard, an intranet-based application. Over the last few years, EPA has conducted an
Agency-wide effort to improve the systems, quality of the measures, and data in the systems.
EPA's work to strengthen performance management contributed to the Agency's winning—in
consecutive years—the President's Quality Award for Management Excellence. EPA is the
second federal agency ever to receive this award, and the only Agency to have won it twice.
EPA has accomplished significant progress in addressing the inherent challenges of performance
measurement. For instance, the Agency conducted an annual review of FY 2009 and FY 2010
measures to further improve the linkages between its operational measures, senior management
priorities, and long-term environmental and health goals. Additionally, the Agency strengthened
governance/oversight of the overall quality of the measures and data in the Measures Central
through modifications to the system, guidance, and training, and it has added ARRA
performance measures to the system. The Agency has also produced Measures Central Mid- and
End-of-Year Reports to improve transparency in performance data reporting across programs
and regional offices and to monitor progress.
EPA continues to engage with state, tribal, and regional stakeholders and has developed a
number of tools to increase collaboration, transparency, efficiency, and the management utility
of the Agency's annual commitment process. EPA offices collaborated internally to develop
data quality Management Action Plans (MAP I and MAP II), which will ensure the accuracy and
reliability of ARRA environmental and performance data. These MAPs require the development
and certification of a Data Quality Record for each ARRA performance measure along with pre-
dissemination review, as required by OMB and the Agency's Information Quality Guidelines,
prior to each public report.
902
-------
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In FY 2011, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:
Current Fees: Pesticides
The FY 2011 President's Budget reflects the continued collection of Maintenance fees for review
of existing pesticide registrations, and Enhanced Registration Service Fees for the accelerated
review of new pesticide registration applications.
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension
The Maintenance fee provides funding for the Reregi strati on program and a certain percentage
supports the processing of applications involving "me-too" or inert ingredients. In FY 2011, the
Agency expects to collect $22 million in Maintenance fees under current law.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the
registration action request is submitted to EPA specifically for accelerated pesticide registration
decision service. This process has introduced new pesticides to the market more quickly. In FY
2011, the Agency expects to collect $14 million in Enhanced Registration Service fees under
current law.
Current Fees: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Since 1989, the Pre-Manufacturing Notifications (PMN) fee has been collected for the review
and processing of new chemical pre-manufacturing notifications submitted to EPA by the
chemical industry. These fees are paid at the time of submission of the PMN for review by
EPA's Toxic Substances program. PMN fees are authorized by the Toxic Substances Control
Act and contain a cap on the amount the Agency may charge for a PMN review. EPA is
authorized to collect up to $1.8 million in PMN fees in FY 2011 under current law.
• Lead Accreditation and Certification Fee
The Toxic Substances Control Act, Title IV, Section 402(a)(3), mandates the development of a
schedule of fees for persons operating lead training programs accredited under the 402/404 rule
and for lead-based paint contractors certified under this rule. The training programs ensure that
lead paint abatement is done safely. Fees collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S.
Treasury. EPA estimates that $1 million will be deposited in FY 2011.
903
-------
• Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is managed by the Air and Radiation
program. Fee collections began in August 1992. This fee is imposed on manufacturers of light-
duty vehicles, light and heavy trucks and motorcycles. The fees cover EPA's cost of certifying
new engines and vehicles and monitoring compliance of in-use engines and vehicles. In 2004,
EPA promulgated a rule that updated existing fees and established fees for newly-regulated
vehicles and engines. The fees established for new compliance programs are also imposed on
heavy-duty, in-use, and nonroad industries, including large diesel and gas equipment
(earthmovers, tractors, forklifts, compressors, etc), handheld and non-handheld utility engines
(chainsaws, weed-whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors,
watercraft, jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles, all-
terrain vehicles, snowmobiles). In 2009, EPA added fees for evaporative requirements for
nonroad engines. EPA intends to apply certification fees to additional industry sectors as new
programs are developed. In FY 2011, EPA expects to collect $20.7 million from this fee.
Fee Proposals: Pesticides
• Pesticides Tolerance Fee
A tolerance is the maximum legal limit of a pesticide residue in and on food commodities and
animal feed. In 1954, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorized the
collection of fees for the establishment of tolerances on raw agricultural commodities and in food
commodities. The collection of this fee has been statutorily blocked by the Pesticides
Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA) through 2012. Legislative language will be
submitted to allow for the collection of Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY 2011 and in subsequent
years. In FY 2011, EPA expects to collect $3 million from this fee.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Legislative language will be submitted proposing to publish a new fee schedule to collect an
additional $10 million in FY 2011 to better align fee collections with program costs. Currently
those who directly benefit from EPA's registration services cover only a fraction of the costs to
operate the program, leaving the general taxpayer to shoulder the remaining burden.
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension
Legislative language will be submitted to allow the collection of an additional $29 million in
order to more closely align fee collections with program costs. The President's Budget proposes
to relieve the burden on the general taxpayer and finance the costs of operating the Reregi strati on
program from those who directly benefit from EPA's reregi strati on activities.
904
-------
Fee Proposals: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Legislative language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic Substances
Control Act on Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees. In FY 2011, EPA expects to collect an
additional $4 million by removing the statutory cap.
• Accelerated Chemical Risk Reduction Fee
Under proposed TSCA reform legislation, the Agency envisions collecting fees to directly
support implementation of the restructured chemicals management program.
905
-------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2011, the Agency begins its fifteenth year of operation of the Working Capital Fund
(WCF). It is a revolving fund, authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations, where the
costs of goods and services provided are charged to users on a fee-for-service basis. The funds
received are available without fiscal year limitation, to continue operations and to replace capital
equipment. EPA's WCF was implemented under the authority of Section 403 of the
Government Management Reform Act of 1994 and EPA's FY 1997 Appropriations Act.
Permanent WCF authority was contained in the Agency's FY 1998 Appropriations Act.
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to: (1) be
accountable to Agency offices, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress; (2)
increase the efficiency of the administrative services provided to program offices; and (3)
increase customer service and responsiveness. The Agency has a WCF Board which provides
policy and planning oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF financial position. The
Board, chaired by the Associate Chief Financial Officer, is composed of twenty-three permanent
members from the program and regional offices.
Four Agency activities, provided in FY 2010, will continue into FY 2011. These are the
Agency's information technology and telecommunications operations, managed by the Office of
Environmental Information, Agency postage costs, managed by the Office of Administration and
Resources Mangement, and the Agency's core accounting system and relocation services, which
are both managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
The Agency's FY 2011 budget request includes resources for these four activities in each
National Program Manager's submission, totaling approximately $200 million. These estimated
resources may be increased to incorporate program office's additional service needs during the
operating year. To the extent that these increases are subject to Congressional reprogramming
notifications, the Agency will comply with all applicable requirements. In FY 2011, the Agency
will continue to market its information technology and relocation services to other Federal
agencies in an effort to deliver high quality services external to EPA, which will result in lower
costs to EPA customers.
906
-------
ACRONYMS
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act
BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CCA: Clinger Cohen Act
CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980)
CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CRA: Civil Rights Act
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
907
-------
CWA: Clean Water Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act
EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act
EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPACT: Energy Policy Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; enacted as amendments to FIFRA.
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
908
-------
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Act
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act
FRA: Federal Register Act
FSA: Food Security Act
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA)
GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act
GMRA: Government Management Reform Act
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act
HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IGA: Inspector General Act
IP A: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
LPA-US/MX-BR: 1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region
MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
909
-------
NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996
ODA: Ocean Dumping Act
OPA: The Oil Pollution Act
OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
PBA: Public Building Act
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act
PR: Privacy Act
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
PRIA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
PRIRA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
910
-------
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCA: Tribal Cooperative Agreement
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act
USC: United States Code
USTCA: Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act
WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
911
-------
STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
CAA, Section
103
CAA, Sections
105, 106
Eligible
Recipients
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA.
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA; Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
States);
Interstate air
quality control
region
designated
pursuant to
section 107 of
the CAA or of
implementing
section 176A, or
section 184
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible.
Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
PM2.5
monitoring and
air toxics
networks and
associated
program costs.
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs, including
monitoring
activities
(section 105);
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA (sections
103 and 106);
Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b)
air pollution
control agency
staff (sections
103 and 105);
Supporting
research,
investigative and
demonstration
projects(section
103).
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$54,850.0
$171,730.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goall,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goall,
/~\Vvi 1
OuJ. 1
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$52,350.0
$241,730.0
912
-------
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
Radon
Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)
Statutory
Authorities
CAA Section
103
CAA, Sections
103 and 105;
Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TSCA, Sections
10 and 306;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA.
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/Tribal
College or
University
State Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate
Agencies
Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
procurement
activities in
support of the
NAAQS.
Conducting air
quality
assessment
activities to
determine a
Tribe's need to
develop a CAA
program;
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program costs;
Supporting
training for CAA
for federally-
recognized
Tribes.
Assist in the
development and
implementation
of programs for
the assessment
and mitigation of
radon.
Develop and
carry out surface
and ground
water pollution
control
programs,
including
NPDES permits,
TMDL's,WQ
standards,
monitoring, and
NPS control
activities.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$0.0
$13,300.0
$8,074.0
$229,264.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
/-\i_ • 's
Obj. 2
Goal 2,
/~yUi ^
UuJ. 2.
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$15,000.0
$13,566.0
$8,074.0
$274,264.0
913
-------
Grant Title
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)
Wetlands
Program
Development
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC)
Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 3 19(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104
(b)(3); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA,
Section 1443(a);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA, Section
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Implement EPA-
approved state
and Tribal
nonpoint source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects as
selected by the
state.
To develop new
wetland
programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management and
restoration of
wetland
resources.
Assistance to
implement and
enforce National
Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations to
ensure the safety
of the Nation's
drinking water
resources and to
protect public
health.
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$200,857.0
$16,830.0
$105,700.0
$10,891.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 2.
Goal 4,
/~O-i •)
UuJ. 3
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goal 2,
/"~"\"U ' 1
Obj. 1
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$200,857.0
$17,167.0
$105,700.0
$11,109.0
914
-------
Grant Title
Beaches
Protection
Hazardous
Waste Financial
Assistance
Brownfields
Statutory
Authorities
BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
RCRA,
Section 3011;
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
CERCLA, as
amended by the
Small Business
Liability Relief
and Brownfields
Revitalization
Act(P.L. 107-
118);GMRA
(1990);FGCAA.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Develop and
implement
programs for
monitoring and
notification of
conditions for
coastal
recreation waters
adjacent to
beaches or
similar points of
access that are
used by the
public.
Development &
Implementation
of Hazardous
Waste programs
Build and
support
Brownfields
programs which
will assess
contaminated
properties,
oversee private
party cleanups,
provide cleanup
support through
low interest
loans, and
provide certainty
for liability
related issues.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$103,346.0
$49,495.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 3,
Obj. 1
Obj. 2
Goal 4,
Obj. 2
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$105,412.0
$49,495.0
915
-------
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
(UST)
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
SWDA, as
amended by the
Superfund
Reauthorization
Amendments of
1986 (Subtitle I),
Section 2007(f),
42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2);
EPActof2005,
Title XV -
Ethanol and
Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B -
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance,
Sections 1521-
1533, P.L. 109-
58, 42 U.S.C.
15801.
FIFRA, Sections
20 and 23; the
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Provide funding
for States'
underground
storage tank
programs.
Implement the
following
programs
through grants to
States, Tribes,
partners, and
supporters:
Certification and
Training /
Worker
Protection,
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program (ESPP)
Field Activities,
Pesticides in
Water, Tribal
Program, and
Pesticide
Environmental
Stewardship
Program.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,500.0
$13,520.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 3,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goal 4,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,550.0
$13,690.0
916
-------
Grant Title
Lead
Toxic
Substances
Compliance
Statutory
Authorities
TSCA, Sections
10and404(g);
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TSCA, Sections
28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Federally
recognized
Indian Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Implement the
lead-based paint
activities in the
Training and
Certification
program through
EPA-authorized
state, territorial
and Tribal
programs and, in
areas without
authorization,
through direct
implementation
by the Agency.
Activities
conducted as
part of this
program include
issuing grants
for the training
and certification
of individuals
and firms
engaged in lead-
based paint
abatement and
inspection
activities and the
accreditation of
qualified
training
providers.
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.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$14,564.0
$5,099.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
f~\]^ • 1
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$14,855.0
$5,201.0
917
-------
Grant Title
Pesticide
Enforcement
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")
Statutory
Authorities
FIFRA
§ 23(a)(l); FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
RCRA, Section
8001; FIFRA,
Section 20;
TSCA, Sections
10 and 28;
MPRSA,
Section 203;
SDWA, Section
1442; Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605
Authorization
for the Exchange
Network Grant
Program over
the previous
eight years has
been provided
by the annual
appropriations
for EPA: FY
2002 to FY 2009
Appropriations
Acts
Eligible
Recipients
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Interstate
Agencies, Tribal
Consortium,
Other Agencies
with Related
Environmental
Information
Activities
Eligible Uses
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs
Helps States,
territories,
Tribes, and
intertribal
consortia
develop the
information
management and
technology
(IM/IT)
capabilities they
need to
participate in the
Exchange
Network, to
continue and
expand data-
sharing
programs, and to
improve access
to environmental
information.
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$18,711.0
$10,000.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
Goal 5,
Obj.2
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$19,085.0
$10,200.0
918
-------
Grant Title
Pollution
Prevention
Tribal General
Assistance
Program
Categorical
Grant: Multi-
Media Tribal
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605; TSCA
Section 10; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act (42
U.S.C. 4368b);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Tribal
Governments,
Intertribal
Consortia
Tribal
Governments
Eligible Uses
Provides
assistance to
States and state
entities (i.e.,
colleges and
universities) and
Federally-
recognized
Tribes and
intertribal
consortia in
order to deliver
pollution
prevention
technical
assistance to
small and
medium-sized
businesses. A
goal of the
program is to
assist businesses
and industries
with identifying
improved
environmental
strategies and
solutions for
reducing waste
at the source.
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
Implement
environmental
programs
FY2010
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$4,940.0
$62,875.0
$0.0
FY2011
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj. 2
GoalS,
Obj. 3
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi "Z
Obj. 3
FY2011PRS
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,039.0
$71,375.0
$30,000.0
919
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Program Projects by Appropriation
(Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition Management
EPM
Superfund
LUST
Administrative Law
EPM
Alternative Dispute Resolution
EPM
Superfund
Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
IG
Superfund
Beach / Fish Programs
EPM
Brownflelds
EPM
Brownflelds Projects
Superfund
STAG
Categorical Grant: Beaches
Protection
STAG
Categorical Grant: Brownflelds
STAG
FY 2009
Actuals
$54,993.6
$31,332.7
$23,521.1
$139.8
$4,584.8
$4,584.8
$2,649.9
$1,280.5
$1,369.4
$50,919.3
$40,605.1
$10,314.2
$3,102.2
$3,102.2
$23,793.1
$23,793.1
$102,024.7
$106.7
$101,918.0
$9,905.2
$9,905.2
$50,586.9
$50,586.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$57,253.0
$32,404.0
$24,684.0
$165.0
$5,275.0
$5,275.0
$2,040.0
$1,147.0
$893.0
$54,766.0
$44,791.0
$9,975.0
$2,944.0
$2,944.0
$24,152.0
$24,152.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$100,000.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$58,436.0
$33,934.0
$24,337.0
$165.0
$5,332.0
$5,332.0
$2,303.0
$1,390.0
$913.0
$55,802.0
$45,646.0
$10,156.0
$2,974.0
$2,974.0
$27,397.0
$27,397.0
$138,254.0
$0.0
$138,254.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,183.0
$1,530.0
($347.0)
$0.0
$57.0
$57.0
$263.0
$243.0
$20.0
$1,036.0
$855.0
$181.0
$30.0
$30.0
$3,245.0
$3,245.0
$38,254.0
$0.0
$38,254.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
920
-------
Categorical Grant: Environmental
Information
STAG
Categorical Grant: Hazardous
Waste Financial Assistance
STAG
Categorical Grant: Homeland
Security
STAG
Categorical Grant: Lead
STAG
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source
(Sec. 319)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Program Implementation
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
STAG
Categorical Grant: Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Radon
STAG
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
FY 2009
Actuals
$12,628.5
$12,628.5
$102,332.3
$102,332.3
$5,916.9
$5,916.9
$14,295.1
$14,295.1
$214,498.2
$214,498.2
$19,208.7
$19,208.7
$12,772.0
$12,772.0
$216,836.3
$216,836.3
$4,932.3
$4,932.3
$99,440.1
$99,440.1
$8,370.4
$8,370.4
$2,717.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$14,564.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0
$13,520.0
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$10,200.0
$10,200.0
$105,412.0
$105,412.0
$0.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$14,855.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
$19,085.0
$19,085.0
$13,690.0
$13,690.0
$274,264.0
$274,264.0
$5,039.0
$5,039.0
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$200.0
$200.0
$2,066.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
$0.0
$291.0
$291.0
$0.0
$0.0
$374.0
$374.0
$170.0
$170.0
$45,000.0
$45,000.0
$99.0
$99.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
921
-------
STAG
Categorical Grant: State and Local
Air Quality Management
STAG
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
STAG
Categorical Grant: Toxics
Substances Compliance
STAG
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air
Quality Management
STAG
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
STAG
Categorical Grant: Underground
Injection Control (UIC)
STAG
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks
STAG
Categorical Grant: Wastewater
Operator Training
STAG
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
STAG
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
STAG
Categorical Grant: Local Govt
Climate Change
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,717.7
$223,541.5
$223,541.5
$8,946.4
$8,946.4
$5,276.9
$5,276.9
$13,962.5
$13,962.5
$61,681.1
$61,681.1
$11,332.4
$11,332.4
$4,549.5
$4,549.5
$23.3
$23.3
$14.0
$14.0
$15,345.1
$15,345.1
$0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$226,580.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$10,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$309,080.0
$309,080.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
$13,566.0
$71,375.0
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$11,109.0
$2,550.0
$2,550.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,167.0
$17,167.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$82,500.0
$82,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$102.0
$102.0
$266.0
$266.0
$8,500.0
$8,500.0
$218.0
$218.0
$50.0
$50.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$337.0
$337.0
($10,000.0)
922
-------
STAG
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media
Tribal Implementation
STAG
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
EPM
Superfund
LUST
Children and Other Sensitive
Populations: Agency Coordination
EPM
Civil Enforcement
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
EPM
Clean Air Allowance Trading
Programs
S&T
EPM
Clean School Bus Initiative
STAG
Climate Protection Program
S&T
EPM
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
EPM
Compliance Assistance and Centers
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$115,139.8
$89,875.3
$24,154.9
$1,109.6
$6,832.4
$6,832.4
$140,340.9
$138,113.2
$2,060.5
$167.2
$0.0
$11,898.0
$11,898.0
$30,254.6
$9,918.4
$20,336.2
$45.3
$45.3
$113,064.7
$15,880.0
$97,184.7
$396.4
$396.4
$26,113.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$10,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$111,439.0
$82,834.0
$27,490.0
$1,115.0
$7,100.0
$7,100.0
$148,634.0
$146,636.0
$1,998.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,224.0
$12,224.0
$30,754.0
$9,963.0
$20,791.0
$0.0
$0.0
$132,841.0
$19,797.0
$113,044.0
$0.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
$114,023.0
$86,039.0
$26,934.0
$1,050.0
$10,159.0
$10,159.0
$191,161.0
$187,755.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$847.0
$12,366.0
$12,366.0
$31,157.0
$9,979.0
$21,178.0
$0.0
$0.0
$139,990.0
$16,940.0
$123,050.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($10,000.0)
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
$2,584.0
$3,205.0
($556.0)
($65.0)
$3,059.0
$3,059.0
$42,527.0
$41,119.0
$561.0
$0.0
$847.0
$142.0
$142.0
$403.0
$16.0
$387.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,149.0
($2,857.0)
$10,006.0
$0.0
$0.0
($26,688.0)
923
-------
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Compliance Incentives
EPM
Superfund
Compliance Monitoring
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
EPM
Superfund
Congressionally Mandated Projects
S&T
EPM
STAG
Criminal Enforcement
EPM
Superfund
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
STAG
Drinking Water Programs
S&T
EPM
Endocrine Disrupters
EPM
Enforcement Training
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$293.5
$22.0
$802.4
$8,839.3
$8,710.0
$129.3
$99,722.3
$98,457.1
$0.0
$1,265.2
$48,750.3
$48,743.0
$7.3
$134,674.8
$5,282.0
$4,983.5
$124,409.3
$54,585.7
$45,527.6
$9,058.1
$44,367.3
$44,367.3
$101,610.1
$3,359.7
$98,250.4
$10,937.0
$10,937.0
$3,887.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$269.0
$0.0
$797.0
$9,560.0
$9,560.0
$0.0
$100,616.0
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$51,944.0
$51,944.0
$0.0
$187,427.0
$5,700.0
$16,950.0
$164,777.0
$57,703.0
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$105,861.0
$3,637.0
$102,224.0
$8,625.0
$8,625.0
$4,177.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$111,826.0
$110,467.0
$139.0
$1,220.0
$57,473.0
$57,473.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$59,454.0
$51,312.0
$8,142.0
$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$109,155.0
$3,827.0
$105,328.0
$8,601.0
$8,601.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($25,622.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($797.0)
($9,560.0)
($9,560.0)
$0.0
$11,210.0
$11,067.0
$139.0
$4.0
$5,529.0
$5,529.0
$0.0
($187,427.0)
($5,700.0)
($16,950.0)
($164,777.0)
$1,751.0
$1,675.0
$76.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,294.0
$190.0
$3,104.0
($24.0)
($24.0)
($4,177.0)
924
-------
EPM
Superfund
Environment and Trade
EPM
Environmental Education
EPM
Environmental Justice
EPM
Superfund
Exchange Network
EPM
Superfund
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
S&T
EPM
B&F
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Federal Stationary Source
Regulations
EPM
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
S&T
EPM
Federal Support for Air Toxics
Program
S&T
EPM
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
and Certification
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,110.6
$776.9
$371.1
$371.1
$8,762.9
$8,762.9
$6,084.9
$5,460.3
$624.6
$18,363.2
$17,440.8
$922.4
$481,429.3
$73,519.6
$302,944.6
$29,282.8
$576.1
$74,210.7
$895.5
$29,494.5
$29,494.5
$105,095.7
$11,395.0
$93,700.7
$26,220.4
$2,052.4
$24,168.0
$76,035.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,278.0
$899.0
$0.0
$0.0
$9,038.0
$9,038.0
$7,885.0
$7,090.0
$795.0
$18,457.0
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$496,978.0
$72,918.0
$315,238.0
$28,931.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$904.0
$27,158.0
$27,158.0
$111,062.0
$11,443.0
$99,619.0
$26,844.0
$2,398.0
$24,446.0
$91,782.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,448.0
$6,448.0
$8,123.0
$7,317.0
$806.0
$20,135.0
$18,702.0
$1,433.0
$510,344.0
$70,495.0
$329,831.0
$31,931.0
$534.0
$76,637.0
$916.0
$34,991.0
$34,991.0
$142,331.0
$7,697.0
$134,634.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$100,761.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($2,590.0)
($2,590.0)
$238.0
$227.0
$11.0
$1,678.0
$1,678.0
$0.0
$13,366.0
($2,423.0)
$14,593.0
$3,000.0
$29.0
($1,845.0)
$12.0
$7,833.0
$7,833.0
$31,269.0
($3,746.0)
$35,015.0
($26,844.0)
($2,398.0)
($24,446.0)
$8,979.0
925
-------
S&T
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
EPM
Superfund
Forensics Support
S&T
Superfund
Geographic Program: Chesapeake
Bay
EPM
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
EPM
Geographic Program: Gulf of
Mexico
EPM
Geographic Program: Lake
Champlain
EPM
Geographic Program: Long Island
Sound
EPM
Geographic Program: Other
EPM
Geographic Program: Mississippi
River Basin
EPM
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
EPM
Geographic Program: San Francisco
Bay
FY 2009
Actuals
$76,035.5
$29,355.4
$26,422.9
$2,932.5
$17,146.5
$14,450.6
$2,695.9
$26,317.8
$26,317.8
$22,026.9
$22,026.9
$4,837.5
$4,837.5
$3,147.5
$3,147.5
$3,072.9
$3,072.9
$5,223.2
$5,223.2
$0.0
$0.0
$11,256.6
$11,256.6
$4,922.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$91,782.0
$28,432.0
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$17,801.0
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
$7,273.0
$7,273.0
$0.0
$0.0
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
$7,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$100,761.0
$29,784.0
$26,466.0
$3,318.0
$18,410.0
$15,909.0
$2,501.0
$62,957.0
$62,957.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,515.0
$4,515.0
$1,434.0
$1,434.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
$4,687.0
$4,687.0
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$5,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$8,979.0
$1,352.0
$979.0
$373.0
$609.0
$558.0
$51.0
$12,957.0
$12,957.0
$0.0
$0.0
($1,485.0)
($1,485.0)
($2,566.0)
($2,566.0)
($4,000.0)
($4,000.0)
($2,586.0)
($2,586.0)
$12,400.0
$12,400.0
($30,000.0)
($30,000.0)
($2,000.0)
926
-------
EPM
Geographic Program: South Florida
EPM
Great Lakes Legacy Act
EPM
Great Lakes Restoration
EPM
Homeland Security: Communication
and Information
EPM
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
S&T
EPM
B&F
Superfund
Human Health Risk Assessment
S&T
Superfund
Human Resources Management
EPM
Superfund
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,922.0
$2,279.6
$2,279.6
$32,782.7
$32,782.7
$0.0
$0.0
$6,983.0
$6,983.0
$32,565.9
$23,961.7
$6,837.2
$1,767.0
$100,305.3
$41,771.8
$3,054.1
$55,479.4
$16,999.3
$587.0
$6,648.8
$8,559.9
$1,203.6
$45,254.5
$41,478.1
$3,776.4
$48,851.3
$43,373.2
$5,475.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,000.0
$2,168.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$0.0
$475,000.0
$475,000.0
$6,926.0
$6,926.0
$31,622.0
$23,026.0
$6,836.0
$1,760.0
$98,660.0
$41,657.0
$3,423.0
$53,580.0
$16,226.0
$593.0
$6,369.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$48,193.0
$44,789.0
$3,404.0
$48,027.0
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$5,000.0
$2,148.0
$2,148.0
$0.0
$0.0
$300,000.0
$300,000.0
$4,324.0
$4,324.0
$18,520.0
$16,105.0
$2,415.0
$0.0
$78,884.0
$34,598.0
$2,012.0
$42,274.0
$16,249.0
$594.0
$6,391.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$48,976.0
$45,626.0
$3,350.0
$51,923.0
$44,842.0
$7,081.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($2,000.0)
($20.0)
($20.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($175,000.0)
($175,000.0)
($2,602.0)
($2,602.0)
($13,102.0)
($6,921.0)
($4,421.0)
($1,760.0)
($19,776.0)
($7,059.0)
($1,411.0)
($11,306.0)
$23.0
$1.0
$22.0
$0.0
$0.0
$783.0
$837.0
($54.0)
$3,896.0
$2,395.0
$1,501.0
927
-------
LUST
IT / Data Management
S&T
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Indoor Air: Radon Program
S&T
EPM
Information Security
EPM
Superfund
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico
Border
STAG
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto
Rico
STAG
International Capacity Building
EPM
International Sources of Pollution
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$3.0
$112,128.3
$3,852.1
$90,809.5
$36.3
$17,266.1
$164.3
$5,718.1
$371.0
$5,347.1
$5,578.5
$4,565.3
$1,013.2
$18,438.4
$18,438.4
$706,139.0
$706,139.0
$865,448.7
$865,448.7
$12,911.8
$12,911.8
$3,849.0
$3,849.0
$1,072.1
$1,072.1
$6,836.1
$6,836.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$119,068.0
$4,385.0
$97,410.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$162.0
$6,319.0
$453.0
$5,866.0
$6,697.0
$5,912.0
$785.0
$13,000.0
$13,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$17,000.0
$17,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,628.0
$8,628.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$118,891.0
$4,111.0
$98,060.0
$0.0
$16,720.0
$0.0
$6,076.0
$461.0
$5,615.0
$7,758.0
$7,030.0
$728.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$2,000,000.0
$2,000,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,759.0
$8,759.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
($177.0)
($274.0)
$650.0
($24.0)
($367.0)
($162.0)
($243.0)
$8.0
($251.0)
$1,061.0
$1,118.0
($57.0)
($3,000.0)
($3,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($7,000.0)
($7,000.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$131.0
$131.0
928
-------
LUST / UST
EPM
LUST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST
LUST Prevention
LUST
Legal Advice: Environmental
Program
EPM
Superfund
Legal Advice: Support Program
EPM
Marine Pollution
EPM
NEPA Implementation
EPM
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways
EPM
Not Specified
Rescissions
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness
and Response
Oil Spills
POPs Implementation
EPM
Pesticides: Protect Human Health
from Pesticide Risk
FY 2009
Actuals
$24,468.7
$13,581.6
$10,887.1
$64,864.4
$64,864.4
$33,973.8
$33,973.8
$42,633.9
$41,917.2
$716.7
$14,236.7
$14,236.7
$13,064.7
$13,064.7
$15,249.8
$15,249.8
$27,082.7
$27,082.7
$0.0
$0.0
$14,445.6
$14,445.6
$94.9
$94.9
$64,111.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$24,037.0
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$43,408.0
$42,662.0
$746.0
$14,419.0
$14,419.0
$13,397.0
$13,397.0
$18,258.0
$18,258.0
$32,567.0
$32,567.0
($40,000.0)
($40,000.0)
$14,944.0
$14,944.0
$0.0
$0.0
$66,694.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$26,809.0
$14,647.0
$12,162.0
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
$44,754.0
$44,002.0
$752.0
$15,735.0
$15,735.0
$13,590.0
$13,590.0
$18,524.0
$18,524.0
$27,233.0
$27,233.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$14,547.0
$14,547.0
$0.0
$0.0
$68,472.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,772.0
$2,223.0
$549.0
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,346.0
$1,340.0
$6.0
$1,316.0
$1,316.0
$193.0
$193.0
$266.0
$266.0
($5,334.0)
($5,334.0)
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
($397.0)
($397.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,778.0
929
-------
S&T
EPM
Pesticides: Protect the Environment
from Pesticide Risk
S&T
EPM
Pesticides: Realize the Value of
Pesticide Availability
S&T
EPM
Pollution Prevention Program
EPM
RCRA: Corrective Action
EPM
RCRA: Waste Management
EPM
RCRA: Waste Minimization &
Recycling
EPM
Radiation: Protection
S&T
EPM
Superfund
Radiation: Response Preparedness
S&T
EPM
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
S&T
EPM
Regional Geographic Initiatives
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,159.3
$60,952.3
$44,652.9
$2,121.9
$42,531.0
$13,215.5
$442.8
$12,772.7
$19,958.8
$19,958.8
$38,451.0
$38,451.0
$67,198.4
$67,198.4
$13,680.9
$13,680.9
$14,745.6
$2,484.4
$9,962.0
$2,299.2
$6,170.1
$3,497.5
$2,672.6
$25,041.7
$706.5
$24,335.2
$32.5
$32.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,750.0
$62,944.0
$44,482.0
$2,279.0
$42,203.0
$13,682.0
$537.0
$13,145.0
$18,050.0
$18,050.0
$40,029.0
$40,029.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$14,379.0
$14,379.0
$15,885.0
$2,095.0
$11,295.0
$2,495.0
$7,253.0
$4,176.0
$3,077.0
$21,521.0
$762.0
$20,759.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$3,806.0
$64,666.0
$45,343.0
$2,312.0
$43,031.0
$14,702.0
$546.0
$14,156.0
$15,419.0
$15,419.0
$40,003.0
$40,003.0
$67,911.0
$67,911.0
$14,822.0
$14,822.0
$16,159.0
$2,127.0
$11,439.0
$2,593.0
$7,351.0
$4,263.0
$3,088.0
$22,924.0
$768.0
$22,156.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$56.0
$1,722.0
$861.0
$33.0
$828.0
$1,020.0
$9.0
$1,011.0
($2,631.0)
($2,631.0)
($26.0)
($26.0)
($931.0)
($931.0)
$443.0
$443.0
$274.0
$32.0
$144.0
$98.0
$98.0
$87.0
$11.0
$1,403.0
$6.0
$1,397.0
$0.0
$0.0
930
-------
Regional Science and Technology
EPM
Regulatory Innovation
EPM
Regulatory/Economic-Management
and Analysis
EPM
Research: Computational Toxicology
S&T
Research: Drinking Water
S&T
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
S&T
Research: Fellowships
S&T
Research: Global Change
S&T
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
S&T
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
S&T
Oil Spills
Superfund
LUST
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
S&T
Research: Water Quality
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,311.4
$3,311.4
$21,827.7
$21,827.7
$17,677.1
$17,677.1
$13,710.1
$13,710.1
$43,762.7
$43,762.7
$9,948.7
$9,948.7
$5,760.7
$5,760.7
$17,264.1
$17,264.1
$155,752.0
$155,752.0
$31,513.8
$11,696.8
$382.8
$19,010.1
$424.1
$28,200.0
$28,200.0
$64,926.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,271.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$19,404.0
$20,048.0
$20,048.0
$49,155.0
$49,155.0
$11,355.0
$11,355.0
$11,083.0
$11,083.0
$20,826.0
$20,826.0
$159,511.0
$159,511.0
$36,286.0
$14,111.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$345.0
$27,347.0
$27,347.0
$61,918.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$3,283.0
$3,283.0
$19,828.0
$19,828.0
$22,640.0
$22,640.0
$21,855.0
$21,855.0
$52,258.0
$52,258.0
$17,378.0
$17,378.0
$17,286.0
$17,286.0
$21,985.0
$21,985.0
$154,093.0
$154,093.0
$34,015.0
$13,800.0
$689.0
$19,069.0
$457.0
$27,645.0
$27,645.0
$68,858.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$12.0
$12.0
$911.0
$911.0
$3,236.0
$3,236.0
$1,807.0
$1,807.0
$3,103.0
$3,103.0
$6,023.0
$6,023.0
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
$1,159.0
$1,159.0
($5,418.0)
($5,418.0)
($2,271.0)
($311.0)
$50.0
($2,122.0)
$112.0
$298.0
$298.0
$6,940.0
931
-------
S&T
Research: Clean Air
S&T
Research: Sustainabih'ty
S&T
Superfund
Science Advisory Board
EPM
Science Policy and Biotechnology
EPM
Small Business Ombudsman
EPM
Small Minority Business Assistance
EPM
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic
Programs
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral
Fund
EPM
Superfund: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund
Superfund: Emergency Response
and Removal
Superfund
Superfund: Enforcement
FY 2009
Actuals
$64,926.0
$90,271.0
$90,271.0
$19,541.7
$19,445.7
$96.0
$5,052.1
$5,052.1
$2,084.4
$2,084.4
$2,623.3
$2,623.3
$2,319.6
$2,319.6
$12,152.1
$12,152.1
$5,961.8
$5,961.8
$9,697.0
$9,697.0
$9,934.8
$9,934.8
$224,789.2
$224,789.2
$172,412.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$61,918.0
$81,917.0
$81,917.0
$27,360.0
$27,287.0
$73.0
$6,278.0
$6,278.0
$1,840.0
$1,840.0
$3,028.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$13,303.0
$5,934.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
$9,632.0
$9,632.0
$202,330.0
$202,330.0
$172,668.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$68,858.0
$85,322.0
$85,322.0
$25,292.0
$25,292.0
$0.0
$5,902.0
$5,902.0
$1,850.0
$1,850.0
$3,040.0
$3,040.0
$2,358.0
$2,358.0
$13,529.0
$13,529.0
$5,711.0
$5,711.0
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
$9,776.0
$9,776.0
$202,784.0
$202,784.0
$176,532.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$6,940.0
$3,405.0
$3,405.0
($2,068.0)
($1,995.0)
($73.0)
($376.0)
($376.0)
$10.0
$10.0
$12.0
$12.0
$8.0
$8.0
$226.0
$226.0
($223.0)
($223.0)
$25.0
$25.0
$144.0
$144.0
$454.0
$454.0
$3,864.0
932
-------
Superfund
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund
Superfund: Support to Other
Federal Agencies
Superfund
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Superfund
Surface Water Protection
EPM
TRI / Right to Know
EPM
Targeted Airshed Grants
STAG
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
EPM
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
EPM
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk
Reduction Program
EPM
Trade and Governance
EPM
Tribal - Capacity Building
EPM
FY 2009
Actuals
$172,412.0
$32,761.5
$32,761.5
$669,293.0
$669,293.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$9,265.5
$9,265.5
$200,635.0
$200,635.0
$15,409.5
$15,409.5
$0.0
$0.0
$6,802.7
$6,802.7
$48,269.9
$48,269.9
$14,260.7
$14,260.7
$5,413.2
$5,413.2
$13,174.7
$13,174.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$172,668.0
$32,105.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$10,570.0
$10,570.0
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
$14,933.0
$14,933.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$6,025.0
$6,025.0
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
$14,329.0
$14,329.0
$6,227.0
$6,227.0
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$176,532.0
$31,543.0
$31,543.0
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$5,920.0
$5,920.0
$10,909.0
$10,909.0
$226,471.0
$226,471.0
$16,494.0
$16,494.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,260.0
$6,260.0
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
$14,413.0
$14,413.0
$6,202.0
$6,202.0
$15,005.0
$15,005.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$3,864.0
($562.0)
($562.0)
$0.0
$0.0
($655.0)
($655.0)
$339.0
$339.0
$17,845.0
$17,845.0
$1,561.0
$1,561.0
($20,000.0)
($20,000.0)
$235.0
$235.0
$934.0
$934.0
$84.0
$84.0
($25.0)
($25.0)
$2,925.0
$2,925.0
933
-------
US Mexico Border
EPM
Wetlands
EPM
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,621.8
$5,621.8
$23,124.1
$23,124.1
$7,794,420.7
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$4,969.0
$4,969.0
$25,940.0
$25,940.0
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$4,979.0
$4,979.0
$28,231.0
$28,231.0
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$10.0
$10.0
$2,291.0
$2,291.0
($277,864.0)
$0.0
($277,864.0)
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals.
934
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Program Projects by Program Area
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Climate Protection Program (other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Water Sentinel
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Safe Building
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
FY 2009
Actuals
$9,918.4
$11,395.0
$2,052.4
$76,035.5
$2,484.4
$3,497.5
$105,383.2
$0.0
$15,880.0
$15,880.0
$15,880.0
$14,450.6
$16,798.2
$7,163.5
$23,961.7
$24,064.7
$648.8
$2,181.0
$14,877.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,963.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$121,857.0
$1,000.0
$18,797.0
$19,797.0
$19,797.0
$15,351.0
$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0
$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$9,979.0
$7,697.0
$0.0
$100,761.0
$2,127.0
$4,263.0
$124,827.0
$0.0
$16,940.0
$16,940.0
$16,940.0
$15,909.0
$11,643.0
$4,462.0
$16,105.0
$21,703.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,895.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$16.0
($3,746.0)
($2,398.0)
$8,979.0
$32.0
$87.0
$2,970.0
($1,000.0)
($1,857.0)
($2,857.0)
($2,857.0)
$558.0
($6,933.0)
$12.0
($6,921.0)
($3,154.0)
($499.0)
($1,996.0)
($1,410.0)
935
-------
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Air
Research: Global Change
Subtotal, Research: Clean Air
Research: Clean Water
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Subtotal, Research: Clean Water
FY 2009
Actuals
$41,771.8
$587.0
$66,320.5
$371.0
$706.5
$1,077.5
$3,852.1
$36,892.0
$15,710.5
$8,812.7
$12,104.4
$73,519.6
$73,519.6
$3,159.3
$2,121.9
$442.8
$5,724.0
$90,271.0
$17,264.1
$107,535.1
$43,762.7
$64,926.0
$108,688.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0
$453.0
$762.0
$1,215.0
$4,385.0
$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
$9,534.0
$72,918.0
$72,918.0
$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0
$81,917.0
$20,826.0
$102,743.0
$49,155.0
$61,918.0
$111,073.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$34,598.0
$594.0
$51,297.0
$461.0
$768.0
$1,229.0
$4,111.0
$30,950.0
$19,893.0
$10,349.0
$9,303.0
$70,495.0
$70,495.0
$3,806.0
$2,312.0
$546.0
$6,664.0
$85,322.0
$21,985.0
$107,307.0
$52,258.0
$68,858.0
$121,116.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($7,059.0)
$1.0
($13,979.0)
$8.0
$6.0
$14.0
($274.0)
($2,997.0)
$716.0
$89.0
($231.0)
($2,423.0)
($2,423.0)
$56.0
$33.0
$9.0
$98.0
$3,405.0
$1,159.0
$4,564.0
$3,103.0
$6,940.0
$10,043.0
936
-------
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Fellowships
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
(other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Subtotal, Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Total, Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Air Toxics and Quality
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Clean Diesel Initiative
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
(other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,282.0
$41,478.1
$13,710.1
$9,948.7
$5,760.7
$76,613.3
$79,116.9
$21.8
$155,752.0
$226,649.6
$11,696.8
$19,445.7
$28,200.0
$3,359.7
$797,065.1
$20,336.2
$29,494.5
$238.1
$93,462.6
$93,700.7
$24,168.0
$9,962.0
$2,672.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$5,700.0
$44,789.0
$20,048.0
$11,355.0
$11,083.0
$83,904.0
$75,607.0
$0.0
$159,511.0
$246,786.0
$14,111.0
$27,287.0
$27,347.0
$3,637.0
$846,049.0
$20,791.0
$27,158.0
$0.0
$99,619.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$45,626.0
$21,855.0
$17,378.0
$17,286.0
$80,122.0
$73,971.0
$0.0
$154,093.0
$256,238.0
$13,800.0
$25,292.0
$27,645.0
$3,827.0
$846,697.0
$21,178.0
$34,991.0
$0.0
$134,634.0
$134,634.0
$0.0
$11,439.0
$3,088.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($5,700.0)
$837.0
$1,807.0
$6,023.0
$6,203.0
($3,782.0)
($1,636.0)
$0.0
($5,418.0)
$9,452.0
($311.0)
($1,995.0)
$298.0
$190.0
$648.0
$387.0
$7,833.0
$0.0
$35,015.0
$35,015.0
($24,446.0)
$144.0
$11.0
937
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Brownflelds
Brownfields
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Asian Pacific Partnership
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry
Climate Protection Program (other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Programs
Great Lakes Restoration
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,961.8
$9,697.0
$195,992.8
$23,793.1
$39,085.5
$3,847.3
($1.0)
$5,163.1
$49,089.8
$97,184.7
$97,184.7
$24,996.0
$8,710.0
$98,457.1
$132,163.1
$138,113.2
$45,527.6
$3,110.6
$5,460.3
$15,249.8
$207,461.5
$4,983.5
$0.0
$26,317.8
$22,026.9
$4,922.0
$11,256.6
FY 2010
Enacted
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$202,160.0
$24,152.0
$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$0.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$113,044.0
$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
$134,582.0
$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0
$16,950.0
$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$5,711.0
$9,865.0
$220,906.0
$27,397.0
$55,475.0
$4,591.0
$0.0
$20,750.0
$42,234.0
$123,050.0
$123,050.0
$0.0
$0.0
$110,467.0
$110,467.0
$187,755.0
$51,312.0
$0.0
$7,317.0
$18,524.0
$264,908.0
$0.0
$300,000.0
$62,957.0
$0.0
$5,000.0
$20,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($223.0)
$25.0
$18,746.0
$3,245.0
$2,869.0
$22.0
$0.0
$4,065.0
$3,050.0
$10,006.0
$10,006.0
($25,622.0)
($9,560.0)
$11,067.0
($24,115.0)
$41,119.0
$1,675.0
($3,278.0)
$227.0
$266.0
$40,009.0
($16,950.0)
($175,000.0)
$12,957.0
$0.0
($2,000.0)
($30,000.0)
938
-------
Geographic Program: South Florida
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a Renewed Environment
(CARE)
Geographic Program: Other (other activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Environmental Education
FY 2009
Actuals
$2,279.6
$0.0
$3,072.9
$4,837.5
$3,147.5
$970.0
$2,842.1
$1,411.1
$5,223.2
$32.5
$83,116.5
$6,983.0
$122.6
$6,714.6
$6,837.2
$1,194.1
$1,860.0
$3,054.1
$6,648.8
$23,523.1
$5,347.1
$24,335.2
$29,682.3
$6,832.4
$8,762.9
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$0.0
$608,441.0
$6,926.0
$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0
$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
$23,554.0
$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$26,625.0
$7,100.0
$9,038.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,148.0
$12,400.0
$3,000.0
$4,515.0
$1,434.0
$978.0
$2,448.0
$1,261.0
$4,687.0
$0.0
$416,141.0
$4,324.0
$0.0
$2,415.0
$2,415.0
$2,012.0
$0.0
$2,012.0
$6,391.0
$15,142.0
$5,615.0
$22,156.0
$27,771.0
$10,159.0
$6,448.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($20.0)
$12,400.0
($4,000.0)
($1,485.0)
($2,566.0)
($522.0)
$0.0
($2,064.0)
($2,586.0)
$0.0
($192,300.0)
($2,602.0)
($99.0)
($4,322.0)
($4,421.0)
($1,411.0)
$0.0
($1,411.0)
$22.0
($8,412.0)
($251.0)
$1,397.0
$1,146.0
$3,059.0
($2,590.0)
939
-------
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Small Business Ombudsman
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
TRI / Right to Know
Tribal - Capacity Building
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
International Programs
US Mexico Border
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Science Advisory Board
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
FY 2009
Actuals
$48,743.0
$17,440.8
$2,623.3
$2,319.6
$12,152.1
$15,409.5
$13,174.7
$127,458.3
$5,621.8
$396.4
$371.1
$1,072.1
$94.9
$6,836.1
$5,413.2
$19,805.6
$4,565.3
$90,809.5
$95,374.8
$4,584.8
$1,280.5
$11,898.0
$41,917.2
$14,236.7
$3,311.4
$21,827.7
$17,677.1
$5,052.1
$121,785.5
FY 2010
Enacted
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0
$4,969.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0
$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0
$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$57,473.0
$18,702.0
$3,040.0
$2,358.0
$13,529.0
$16,494.0
$15,005.0
$143,208.0
$4,979.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,759.0
$6,202.0
$19,940.0
$7,030.0
$98,060.0
$105,090.0
$5,332.0
$1,390.0
$12,366.0
$44,002.0
$15,735.0
$3,283.0
$19,828.0
$22,640.0
$5,902.0
$130,478.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$5,529.0
$1,678.0
$12.0
$8.0
$226.0
$1,561.0
$2,925.0
$12,408.0
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$131.0
($25.0)
$116.0
$1,118.0
$650.0
$1,768.0
$57.0
$243.0
$142.0
$1,340.0
$1,316.0
$12.0
$911.0
$3,236.0
($376.0)
$6,881.0
940
-------
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Acquisition Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
HPV/VCCEP
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction (other activities)
Subtotal, Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
FY 2009
Actuals
$155,471.0
$6,585.1
$24,545.2
$116,343.3
$302,944.6
$89,875.3
$31,332.7
$26,422.9
$43,373.2
$493,948.7
$60,952.3
$42,531.0
$12,772.7
$2,084.4
$118,340.4
$67,198.4
$38,451.0
$13,680.9
$119,330.3
$10,937.0
$10.0
$48,259.9
$48,269.9
$19,958.8
$6,802.7
$14,260.7
$100,229.1
FY 2010
Enacted
$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$498,410.0
$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0
$8,625.0
$0.0
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
$101,915.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$169,915.0
$13,409.0
$30,901.0
$115,606.0
$329,831.0
$86,039.0
$33,934.0
$26,466.0
$44,842.0
$521,112.0
$64,666.0
$43,031.0
$14,156.0
$1,850.0
$123,703.0
$67,911.0
$40,003.0
$14,822.0
$122,736.0
$8,601.0
$0.0
$55,820.0
$55,820.0
$15,419.0
$6,260.0
$14,413.0
$100,513.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$12,875.0
($105.0)
$2,904.0
($1,081.0)
$14,593.0
$3,205.0
$1,530.0
$979.0
$2,395.0
$22,702.0
$1,722.0
$828.0
$1,011.0
$10.0
$3,571.0
($931.0)
($26.0)
$443.0
($514.0)
($24.0)
$0.0
$934.0
$934.0
($2,631.0)
$235.0
$84.0
($1,402.0)
941
-------
LUST/UST
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
Total, Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Total, Inspector General
Building and Facilities
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Total, Building and Facilities
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Air Toxics and Quality
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
FY 2009
Actuals
$13,581.6
$32,782.7
$27,082.7
$23,124.1
$82,989.5
$3,102.2
$98,250.4
$101,352.6
$13,064.7
$200,635.0
$213,699.7
$2,405,796.7
$40,605.1
$40,605.1
$8,559.9
$29,282.8
$37,842.7
$2,299.2
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,424.0
$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0
$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0
$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0
$2,993,779.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$8,070.0
$28,931.0
$37,001.0
$2,495.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$14,647.0
$0.0
$27,233.0
$28,231.0
$55,464.0
$2,974.0
$105,328.0
$108,302.0
$13,590.0
$226,471.0
$240,061.0
$2,891,036.0
$45,646.0
$45,646.0
$8,070.0
$31,931.0
$40,001.0
$2,593.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,223.0
$0.0
($5,334.0)
$2,291.0
($3,043.0)
$30.0
$3,104.0
$3,134.0
$193.0
$17,845.0
$18,038.0
($102,743.0)
$855.0
$855.0
$0.0
$3,000.0
$3,000.0
$98.0
942
-------
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decontamination
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach
FY 2009
Actuals
$10,314.2
$22.0
$129.3
$1,265.2
$1,416.5
$624.6
$172,412.0
$9,265.5
$167.2
$9,058.1
$776.9
$2,695.9
$195,000.2
$177.0
$1,590.0
$1,767.0
$8,777.3
$8,933.2
$37,768.9
$55,479.4
$1,203.6
$58,450.0
$7.3
$922.4
$929.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,975.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0
$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
$0.0
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0
$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0
$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$10,156.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,220.0
$1,220.0
$806.0
$176,532.0
$10,909.0
$0.0
$8,142.0
$0.0
$2,501.0
$198,890.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,011.0
$5,838.0
$29,425.0
$42,274.0
$1,194.0
$43,468.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$181.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4.0
$4.0
$11.0
$3,864.0
$339.0
$0.0
$76.0
($899.0)
$51.0
$3,442.0
($198.0)
($1,562.0)
($1,760.0)
($3,787.0)
($3,788.0)
($3,731.0)
($11,306.0)
$0.0
($13,066.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
943
-------
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: Sustainability
Research: Sustainability
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Brownfields Projects
FY 2009
Actuals
$1,013.2
$17,266.1
$18,279.3
$1,369.4
$716.7
$2,086.1
$45,071.8
$1,837.0
$6,056.1
$21,245.8
$74,210.7
$2,932.5
$23,521.1
$5,475.1
$24,154.9
$130,294.3
$3,776.4
$19,010.1
$96.0
$224,789.2
$9,934.8
$32,761.5
$669,293.0
$6,575.0
$106.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0
$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0
$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0
$3,404.0
$21,191.0
$73.0
$202,330.0
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$728.0
$16,720.0
$17,448.0
$913.0
$752.0
$1,665.0
$41,888.0
$3,749.0
$8,412.0
$22,588.0
$76,637.0
$3,318.0
$24,337.0
$7,081.0
$26,934.0
$138,307.0
$3,350.0
$19,069.0
$0.0
$202,784.0
$9,776.0
$31,543.0
$605,438.0
$5,920.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($57.0)
($367.0)
($424.0)
$20.0
$6.0
$26.0
($2,412.0)
$352.0
$113.0
$102.0
($1,845.0)
$373.0
($347.0)
$1,501.0
($556.0)
($874.0)
($54.0)
($2,122.0)
($73.0)
$454.0
$144.0
($562.0)
$0.0
($655.0)
$0.0
944
-------
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
LUST/ UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
LUST Cooperative Agreements (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Prevention
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
Subtotal, LUST Prevention
FY 2009
Actuals
$943,460.2
$1,385,412.2
$0.0
$802.4
$164.3
$696.0
$199.5
$895.5
$139.8
$1,109.6
$3.0
$2,147.9
$424.1
$12.6
$10,874.5
$10,887.1
$3,445.1
$61,419.3
$64,864.4
$33,973.8
$33,973.8
FY 2010
Enacted
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0
$0.0
$797.0
$162.0
$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
$1,115.0
$0.0
$2,184.0
$345.0
$0.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$855,461.0
$1,293,060.0
$847.0
$0.0
$0.0
$696.0
$220.0
$916.0
$165.0
$1,050.0
$0.0
$2,131.0
$457.0
$0.0
$12,162.0
$12,162.0
$0.0
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($619.0)
($13,481.0)
$847.0
($797.0)
($162.0)
$0.0
$12.0
$12.0
$0.0
($65.0)
$0.0
($53.0)
$112.0
$0.0
$549.0
$549.0
$0.0
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
$0.0
945
-------
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Total, Oil Spill Response
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
FY 2009
Actuals
$109,725.3
$113,264.0
$293.5
$0.0
$293.5
$2,060.5
$36.3
$14,445.6
$538.0
$38.1
$576.1
$576.1
$382.8
$17,794.8
$706,139.0
$865,448.7
$124,409.3
$18,438.4
$101,918.0
$45.3
FY 2010
Enacted
$109,613.0
$113,101.0
$269.0
$0.0
$269.0
$1,998.0
$24.0
$14,944.0
$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0
$639.0
$18,379.0
$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$164,777.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$109,784.0
$113,219.0
$0.0
$139.0
$139.0
$2,559.0
$0.0
$14,547.0
$438.0
$96.0
$534.0
$534.0
$689.0
$18,468.0
$2,000,000.0
$1,287,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$138,254.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$171.0
$118.0
($269.0)
$139.0
($130.0)
$561.0
($24.0)
($397.0)
$0.0
$29.0
$29.0
$29.0
$50.0
$89.0
($100,000.0)
($100,000.0)
($164,777.0)
($3,000.0)
$38,254.0
$0.0
946
-------
EPAct & Related Authorities Implemention
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
(other activities)
Subtotal, Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Targeted Airshed Grants
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grants: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
1 06) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
FY 2009
Actuals
$0.0
$15,000.0
$29,367.3
$44,367.3
$0.0
$12,911.8
$3,849.0
$1,877,526.8
$9,905.2
$50,586.9
$12,628.5
$102,332.3
$5,916.9
$14,295.1
$0.0
$214,498.2
$0.0
$19,208.7
$12,772.0
$12,975.8
$203,860.5
$216,836.3
$4,932.3
$99,440.1
$8,370.4
$2,717.7
$223,541.5
$8,946.4
$5,276.9
$13,962.5
$61,681.1
$11,332.4
FY 2010
Enacted
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$0.0
$3,861,777.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$200,857.0
$0.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0
$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$60,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$3,505,254.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$105,412.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$30,000.0
$19,085.0
$13,690.0
$23,500.0
$250,764.0
$274,264.0
$5,039.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$0.0
$309,080.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($20,000.0)
($7,000.0)
$0.0
($356,523.0)
$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$2,066.0
$0.0
$291.0
($10,000.0)
$0.0
$30,000.0
$374.0
$170.0
$5,000.0
$40,000.0
$45,000.0
$99.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$82,500.0
$0.0
$102.0
$266.0
$8,500.0
$218.0
947
-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
(no Program Area specified)
Not Specified
Total, Rescission of Prior Year Funds
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2009
Actuals
$4,549.5
$23.3
$14.0
$15,345.1
$1,119,113.3
$2,996,640.1
$0.0
$0.0
$7,794,420.7
$7,100,098.3
$14,894,519.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0
$4,978,223.0
($40,000.0)
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
$0.0
$10,297,864.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$2,550.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,167.0
$1,276,619.0
$4,781,873.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$10,020,000.0
$0.0
$10,020,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$50.0
$0.0
$0.0
$337.0
$160,173.0
($196,350.0)
$30,000.0
$30,000.0
($277,864.0)
$0.0
($277,864.0)
$10M rescission implemented in FY2009 against PY funds. No impact to actuals.
948
-------
Discontinued Programs
949
-------
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$5,916.9
$5,916..9
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Homeland Security Grant program focused on supporting states with coordination activities
for critical water infrastructure security efforts, including coordinating and providing technical
assistance, training, and education within the state or territory on homeland security issues.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no performance measures for this
program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
950
-------
Categorical Grant: Puerto Rico
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$3,849.0
$3,849.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program was created to contribute to the design for an upgrade of Metropolitano's Sergio
Cuervas drinking water treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico. EPA contributed funds based
on a FY 2004 design cost estimate for bringing the plant into compliance with current regulatory
requirements.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is not requesting funding for this program proj ect in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supported multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
951
-------
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY
2009
Actuals
52,777.7
$2,717.7
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
V.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
($0.0)
(0.0)
Program Project Description:
Sector program grants built environmental partnerships with states and tribes to strengthen their
ability to address environmental and public health threats, including contaminated drinking
water, pollution caused by wet weather events, pesticides in food, toxic substances, and air
pollution. These capacity building grants supported state and Tribal agencies that are responsible
for implementing authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs.14
EPA has used this grant to support states and tribes in their efforts to build, implement, or
improve compliance capacity for authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs.
Specific activities have included: 1) improving compliance data collection and quality, 2)
modernizing data systems, 3) improving public access to enforcement and compliance data, and,
4) providing compliance training to states and tribes to enhance their compliance monitoring
capacity.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
Program was discontinued in FY 2010. There is no request for this program in FY 2011.
Performance Targets:
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA; MPRSA.
14 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/stag/index.html
952
-------
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,946.4
$8,946.4
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program focused on community-based approaches and
management techniques to protect and restore the nation's waters.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for
this program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006;
Public Law 109-54.
953
-------
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Program Area: Categorical Grant
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$23.3
$23.3
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorized funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-site Assistance Training program. This program targeted small publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants, with a discharge of less than 5 million gallons per day. Federal
funding for this program was administered through grants to states, often in cooperation with
educational institutions or non-profit agencies. In most cases, assistance was administered
through an environmental training center.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for
this program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality Objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
954
-------
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$14.0
$14.0
0.0
FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Under authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, EPA made grants to a wide variety
of recipients, including states, tribes, state water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies,
and other nonprofit institutions, organizations, and individuals to promote the coordination of
environmentally beneficial activities. This competitive funding vehicle was used by EPA's
partners to further the Agency's goals of providing clean and safe water. The program was
designed to fund a broad range of projects, including: innovative water efficiency programs,
research, training and education, demonstration, best management practices, stormwater
management planning, and innovative permitting programs and studies related to the causes,
effects, extent, and prevention of pollution.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for
this program (previously under EPA's Protect Water Quality objective).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
955
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY
2009
Actuals
$24,996.0
$802.4
$293.5
$22.0
$26,113.9
179.8
FY
2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$0.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY
2011
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
$0.0
($26,688.0)
(173.7)
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Assistance program provides information to millions of regulated entities and
Federal agencies to help them understand and meet their environmental obligations. This
information lets regulated entities know of their legal obligations under Federal environmental
laws. Compliance assistance resources include Web sites, compliance guides, emission
calculators, and training materials aimed at specific business communities or industry sectors.
Additionally, onsite compliance assistance and information is sometimes provided by EPA
inspectors during an inspection.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The activities previously funded from the Superfund appropriation for the Compliance
Assistance program for supporting Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) have been
consolidated with the rest of the Agency's ICIS Superfund budget in the Compliance Monitoring
program. No new activities or funding is planned for this program in FY 2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
956
-------
Compliance Incentives
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$8,710.0
$129.3
$8,839.3
58.7
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,560.0
$0.0
$9,560.0
62.5
FY2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY2011
Pres Bud
V.
FY2010
Enacted
($9,560.0)
$0.0
($9,560.0)
(62.5)
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Incentives program encouraged regulated entities to monitor and quickly
correct environmental violations, reduce pollution, and make improvements in regulated entities'
environmental management practices. EPA uses a variety of approaches to encourage entities to
self-disclose environmental violations under various environmental statues.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan:
The activities previously funded from the Superfund appropriation for the Compliance Incentives
program for supporting Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) have been
consolidated with the rest of the Agency's ICIS Superfund budget in the Compliance Monitoring
program in FY 2011.
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
957
-------
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2009
Actuals
$32.5
$32.5
0.00
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2011 Pres
Budv.
FY 2010
Enacted
($0.0)
($0.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) supported innovative and geographically based
projects. These funds were available to EPA Regional offices to support priority local and
Regional environmental projects, which have included protecting children's health, restoring
watersheds, providing for clean air, preventing pollution and fostering environmental
stewardship. RGI provided a tool to facilitate holistic and innovative resolutions to complex
environmental problems.
FY 2011 Activities and Performance Plan
There is no request for this program in FY 2011. There are no current performance measures for
this program (previously under EPA's Objective 4.2: Communities).
FY 2011 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA.
958
-------
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT'S E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov Initiative benefits EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location to
publish grant opportunities and application packages, and by providing a single site for the grants
community to apply for grants using common forms, processes and systems. EPA believes that
the central site raises the visibility of our grants opportunities to a wider diversity of applicants.
Grants.gov has also allowed EPA to discontinue support for its own electronic grant application
system, saving operational, training, and account management costs.
The grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Applicants
save time in searching for Agency grant opportunities and in learning the application systems of
various agencies. At the request of the state environmental agencies, EPA has begun to offer
Grants.gov application packages for mandatory grants (i.e., Continuing Environmental Program
Grants). States requested that the Agency extend usage to mandatory programs to streamline
their application process.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$486.450
$486.450
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)
The Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) is comprised of nine government-wide automated
applications and/or databases that have contributed to streamlining the acquisition business
process across the government. EPA leverages the usefulness of some of these systems via
electronic linkages between EPA's acquisition systems and the IAE shared systems. Other IAE
systems are not linked directly to EPA's acquisition systems, but benefit the Agency's
contracting staff and vendor community as stand-alone resources.
EPA's acquisition systems use data provided by the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) to
replace internally maintained vendor data. Contracting officers can download vendor-provided
representation and certification information electronically, via the Online Representations and
Certifications (ORCA) database, which allows vendors to submit this information once, rather
than separately for every contract proposal. Contracting officers are able to access the Excluded
Parties List System (EPLS), via links in EPA's acquisition systems, to identify vendors that are
debarred from receiving contract awards.
Contracting officers can also link to the Wage Determination Online (WDOL) to obtain
information required under the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. EPA's
acquisition systems link to the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG)
for submission of contract actions at the time of award. FPDS-NG provides public access to
government-wide contract information. The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System
(eSRS) supports vendor submission of subcontracting data for contracts identified as requiring
this information. EPA submits synopses of procurement opportunities over $25,000 to the
959
-------
Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, where the information is accessible to the public.
Vendors use this website to identify business opportunities in federal contracting.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$124.454
$108.139
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) Grants and Loans
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires the agencies to
unambiguously identify contract, grant, and loan recipients and determine parent/child
relationship, address information, etc. The FFATA taskforce determined that using both the Dun
and Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number (standard identifier for all business lines) and Central
Contractor Registration (CCR), the single point of entry for data collection and dissemination, is
the most appropriate way to accomplish this. This fee will pay for EPA's use of this service in
the course of reporting grants and/or loans.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$17.134
$8.808
Enterprise Human Resource Integration Initiative
The Enterprise Human Resource Integration's (EHRI) Electronic Official Personnel Folder
(eOPF) is designed to provide a consolidated repository that digitally documents the employment
actions and history of individuals employed by the Federal government. EPA has completed
migration to the federal eOPF system. This initiative will benefit the Agency by reducing file
room maintenance costs and improve customer service for employees and productivity for FIR
specialists. Customer service will improve for employees since they will have 24/7 access to
view and print their official personnel documents and HR specialists will no longer be required
to manually file, retrieve or mail personnel actions to employees thus improving productivity.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$372.870
$387.666
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS)
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) simplifies the process of locating and applying for Federal jobs.
USAJOBS is a standard job announcement and resume builder. It is the one-stop for Federal job
seekers to search for and apply to positions on-line. This integrated process benefits citizens by
providing a more efficient process to locate and apply for jobs, and assists Federal agencies in
hiring top talent in a competitive marketplace. The Recruitment One-Stop initiative has
increased job seeker satisfaction with the Federal job application process and is helping the
Agency to locate highly-qualified candidates and improve response times to applicants.
960
-------
By integrating with ROS, the Agency has eliminated the need for applicants to maintain multiple
user IDs to apply for Federal jobs through various systems. The vacancy announcement format
has been improved for easier readability. The system can maintain up to 5 resumes per
applicant, which allows them to create and store resumes tailored to specific skills — this is an
improvement from our previous system that only allowed one resume per applicant. In addition,
ROS has a notification feature that keeps applicants updated on the current status of the
application, and provides a link to the agency website for detailed information. This self-help
ROS feature allows applicants to obtain up-to-date information on the status of their application
upon request.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$110.544
$110.544
eTraining
This initiative encourages e-learning to improve training, efficiency and financial performance.
EPA recently exercised its option to renew the current Interagency Agreement with OPM-
GoLearn that provides licenses to online training for employees. EPA purchased 5,000 licenses
to prevent any interruption in service to current users.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
*
*
Human Resources LoB
The 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 HR LoB offers common solutions that will enable Federal departments and agencies to work
more effectively, and it provides managers and executives across the Federal Government
improved means to meet strategic objectives. EPA benefits by supporting an effective program
management activity which will deliver more tangible results in FY 2009 and beyond.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$65.217
$65.217
* The FY 2010 allocation of the Agency's contribution is still pending. The Agency has assumed the same level as FY 2010.
961
-------
Grants Management LoB
In FY 2008, EPA managed 7,960 grant awards equaling approximately $3.8 billion. EPA
anticipates the key benefit will be having a centralized location to download all applications,
make awards, and track awards to closeout. Automated business processes, available through
consortium service providers, will decrease agency reliance on manual and paper-based
processing. Consortium lead agencies will spread operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and
development, modernization, and enhancement (DME) costs across agencies, decreasing the
burden that any one agency must bear.
GM LoB will lead to a reduction in the number of systems of record for grants data across EPA
and the government and the development of common reporting standards, improving EPA's
ability to provide agency- and government-wide reports on grant activities and results.
Migrating to a consortium lead agency will help EPA comply with the Federal Financial
Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 and the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006.
Service to constituents will be improved through the standardization and streamlining of
government-wide grants business processes. The public will save time as a result of quicker
notification and faster payments due to an automated system for grants processing. Furthermore,
GM LoB will minimize complex and varying agency-specific requirements and increase grantee
ease of use on Federal grants management systems. Constituents will benefit as they will have
fewer unique agency systems and processes to learn; grantees' ability to learn how to use the
system will be improved and reliance on call center technical support will be reduced.
Consortium lead agencies also will provide grantees with online access to standard post-award
reports, decreasing the number of unique agency-specific reporting requirements.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 00-24
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 00-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$59.316
$59.316
Business Gateway
By creating a single entry-point for business information, such as the e-Forms catalog, Business
Gateway directly benefits EPA's regulated communities, many of whom are subject to complex
regulatory requirements across multiple agencies. This initiative also benefits EPA by
centralizing OMB reporting requirements under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002. EPA has over 100 initiatives, activities, and services directed at small business needs.
Many of those initiatives are highlighted to small businesses through periodic features in
Business.gov. This allows special focus to be brought to bear at critical times to the intended
audiences for those initiatives. In addition, with the launch of the Business.gov Community,
small business users are able to interact on-line where they can discuss, share and ask questions
of other business owners as well as industry and government experts. Business.gov also
continues to provide a one-stop compliance tool enabling small and emerging businesses access
to compliance information, forms and tools across the Federal Government. Business Gateway
supports EPA's small business activities function by providing the following benefits:
• a single point of access for electronic regulatory forms;
962
-------
• "plain English" compliance guidance, fact sheets and links to checklists for
small businesses; and
• an extensive Web site with numerous links to other internal and external
assistance sources.
Beginning in FY2009 the Business Gateway program has been fully funded by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the managing partner. EPA plans to continue its partnership
with Business Gateway program, however there will be no transfer of funds in FY2010 and
FY2011.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$0
$0
Geospatial LoB
The Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB) is an intergovernmental project to improve the
ability of the public and government to use geospatial information to support the business of
government and facilitate decision-making. This initiative will reduce EPA costs and improve
our operations in several areas. The investment in FY 2010 and FY 2011 will provide the
necessary planning and coordination to begin providing significant benefits to EPA in the
following ways:
EPA's geospatial program has achieved a cost avoidance of approximately $2 million per year by
internally consolidating procurements for data and tools into multi-year enterprise licenses. The
Agency is currently applying these lessons learned for the benefit of our partners in the GeoLoB
as well as colleagues in State, Local and Tribal government organizations. The GeoLoB will
reduce costs by providing an opportunity for EPA and other agencies to share approaches on
procurement consolidation that other agencies can follow. Throughout FY 2008-2009, EPA has
played a key leadership role in a GeoLoB Workgroup to explore opportunities for Federal-wide
acquisition of key geospatial software and data. In early FY 2010, the first of these acquisitions
became available to the Federal community through the Smartbuy Program managed by our
GeoLoB partners at GSA. It is anticipated that this year, at least 2-3 additional Federal-wide
common services will be made available in addition to Smartbuy.
EPA benefits from Geospatial LoB in FY 2011 are anticipated to be the same as those described
for FY 2010.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$42.000
$42.000
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking Program is designed to enhance public access and participation in the
regulatory process through electronic systems; reduce burden for citizens and businesses in
963
-------
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 eRulemaking Program's Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) currently supports
165 federal entities including all Cabinet-level Departments and independent rulemaking
agencies which collectively promulgate over 90 percent of all Federal regulations each year.
FDMS has simplified the public's participation in the rulemaking process and made EPA's
rulemaking business processes more accessible as well as transparent. FDMS provides EPA's
approximately 1,600 registered users with a secure, centralized electronic repository for
managing the Agency's rulemaking development via distributed management of data and robust
role-based user access. EPA posts regulatory and non-regulatory documents in Regulations.gov
for public viewing, downloading, bookmarking, email notification, and commenting. For
calendar year 2009, EPA posted 735 rules and proposed rules, 1,409 Federal Register notices,
and 96,544 public submissions mRegulations.gov. EPA also posted over 18,000 documents that
were supporting and related materials associated with other postings. Overall, EPA provides
public access to more than 481,000 documents in Regulations.gov.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$1,057.931
$613.000
E-Travel
E-Travel provides EPA with efficient and effective travel management services, with cost
savings from cross-government purchasing agreements and improved functionality through
streamlined travel policies and processes, strict security and privacy controls, and enhanced
agency oversight and audit capabilities. EPA employees also will benefit from the integrated
travel planning provided through E-Travel.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$1,099.540
$1,105.486
Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB)
The FMLoB 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. EPA will complete the planning and acquisition phase of its Financial
System Modernization Project (FSMP) and will begin migration to a shared service provider.
This work will benefit from the migration guidance, including the use of performance metrics
developed for service level agreements and the use of standard business processes developed for
four core financial management sub-functions: Payments, Receipts, Funds and Reporting. By
incorporating the same FM LoB-standard processes as those used by central agency systems,
interfaces among the systems will be streamlined and the quality of information available for
decision-making will be improved. In addition, EPA expects to achieve operational savings in
964
-------
future years because of the use of the shared service provider for operations and maintenance of
the new system.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$44.444
$44.444
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE) LoB
The Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business (BFE LoB) allow EPA and other
agencies to access budget-related benefits and services. The Agency has the option to implement
LoB sponsored tools and services.
EPA has benefited from the BFE LoB by sharing valuable information on what has or hasn't
worked on the use of different budget systems and software. This effort has created a
government only capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the Budget Community
website allows EPA to share budget information with OMB (and other Federal agencies). The
LoB is working on giving EPA and other agencies the capability to have secure, virtual on-line
meetings where participants can not only hear what's been said by conference calling into the
meeting, but also view budget-related presentations directly from their workspace. The LoB has
provided budget-related training to EPA budget employees on OMB's MAX budget system, and
on Treasury's FACTS II statements explaining how it ties to the budget process.
Fiscal Year
2010
2011
Account Code
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$95.000
$105.000
IT Dashboard:
The IT Dashboard provides the public with an online window into the details of Federal
information technology investments and provides users with the ability to track the progress of
investments over time. For more information, please visit: http://it.usaspending.gov.
965
-------
SUPERFUND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS15
Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to retain and use funds received pursuant to an agreement with a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) to carry out the purpose of that agreement. EPA retains
such funds in special accounts, which are sub-accounts in EPA's Superfund Trust Fund.
Pursuant to the specific agreements, which typically take the form of an Administrative Order on
Consent or Consent Decree, EPA uses special account funds to finance site-specific CERCLA
response actions at the site for which the account was established. Through the use of special
accounts, EPA pursues its "enforcement first" policy - ensuring responsible parties pay for
cleanup - so that appropriated resources from the Superfund Trust Fund are conserved for sites
where no viable or liable PRPs can be identified. Both special account resources and
appropriated resources are critical to the Superfund program.
Special account funds are used to conduct many different site-specific CERCLA response
actions, including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the extent of contamination and
appropriate remedy needed, construction and implementation of the remedy, enforcement
activities, and post-construction activities. EPA may also provide special account funds to a PRP
who agrees to perform work under an agreement, as an incentive (in the form of a
reimbursement) to perform additional work beyond the PRP's fair share at the site, which EPA
might otherwise have to conduct using appropriated resources. Because response actions may
take many years, the full use of special account funds may also take many years. Per the terms
of the agreement, once site-specific work is complete and site risks are addressed, EPA may use
special account funds to reimburse EPA for site-specific costs incurred using appropriated
resources (e.g., reclassification), allowing the latter resources to be allocated to other sites. Any
remaining special account funds are generally transferred to the Superfund Trust Fund, where
they are available for future appropriation by Congress to further support cleanup at other sites.
Since the inception of special accounts through the end of FY 2009, EPA has collected
approximately $2.59 billion from PRPs and earned $372.3 million in interest. EPA has also
transferred a cumulative $11.6 million to the Superfund Trust Fund. As of the end of FY 2009,
$1.43 billion has been disbursed to finance site response actions and $184.3 million has been
obligated but not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully managing the $1.34 billion that was available
as of October 1, 2009 and has developed multi-year plans to use these funds as expeditiously as
possible. The majority of accounts (68%) have an available balance of less than $500,000,
while 2% of accounts have an available balance of $10 million or more. The following table
illustrates the cumulative status of open and closed accounts, FY 2009 program activity, and
planned multi-year uses of the available balance.
15 House Report lll-180oftheFY2010 Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill directs
the Agency to include in its annual budget justification a plan for using special account funds expeditiously. This information is
being provided in response to this request.
966
-------
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS:
FY 2009 Program Actuals and Future Multi-Year Program Resource
Plan
Account Status1
Cumulative Open
Cumulative Closed
FY 2009 Inputs and Outputs to 2008 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance1
2008 EOFY Available Balance
FY 2009 Activities
+ Receipts
- Transfers to Superfund Trust Fund (Receipt Adjustment)
+ Interest Earned
- Net Change in Unliquidated Obligations
- Disbursements for EPA Incurred Costs
- Disbursements for Work Party Reimbursements under Final
Settlements
- Reclassifications
2009 EOFY Available Balance2
Multi-Year Plans for EOFY 2009 Available Balance
2009 EOFY Available Balance2
• Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities3
• Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties
Identified in Final Settlements4
• Estimates for Reclassifications for FYs 2010-20125
• Estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund for FYs 2010-20125
• Available Balance To Be Assigned6
Number of
Accounts
905
43
$ in Thousands
$1,323,594.5
$237,089.4
($9,541.4)
$25,466.4
($37,520.8)
($167,643.5)
($14,339.1)
($14.391.9)
$1,342,713.7
$ in Thousands
$1,342,713.7
$1,181,142.7
$39,173.8
$58,348.4
$4,954.9
$59,093.8
1 FY 2009 data is as of 10/01/2009. The 2008 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance is as of
10/01/2008.
2 Numbers may not add due to rounding.
3 "Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities" includes all response actions that EPA may conduct or
oversee in the future, such as removal, remedial, enforcement, post-construction activities as well as
allocation of funds for settlement incentives to encourage PRPs to perform the cleanup. Planning data are
multi-year and cannot be used for annual comparisons.
4 "Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties Identified in Final Settlements" includes those
funds that have already been designated in a settlement document, such as a Consent Decree or
Administrative Order on Consent, to be available to a PRP for reimbursements but that have not yet been
obligated.
5 "Reclassifications" and "Transfers to the Trust Fund" are estimated for three FYs only.
6 Planning data were recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of 10/16/2009 in reference to special account available
balances as of 10/01/2009. Receipts collected in the last quarter of the fiscal year may not have been fully
planned for use in CERCLIS at the time of data entry and are reflected in "Available Balance To Be
Assigned."
967
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
HIGH PRIORITY PERFORMANCE GOALS (HPPGS)
The Environmental Protection Agency develops a 5-year strategic plan, as well as an annual
performance plan and annual reports on our progress. As part of developing the FY 2011 Budget
and Performance Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency has also identified a limited
number of high priority performance goals that will be a particular focus over the next two years.
These goals are a subset of those used to regularly monitor and report performance. To view the
full set of performance information please visit www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2009par/.
Mission: The mission of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health
and to safeguard the natural environment — air, water and land — upon which life depends.
EPA's High Priority Performance Goals:
I.EPA will improve the country's ability to measure and control Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions. Building a foundation for action is essential.
By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100% of facility-level GHG
emissions data submitted to EPA in compliance with the GHG Reporting Rule.
• In 2011, EPA, working with US DOT, will begin implementation of regulations
designed to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the US starting
with model year 2012.
II. Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will
take actions over the next two years to improve water quality.
All Chesapeake Bay watershed States (including the District of Columbia) will develop
and submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010
and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's final Chesapeake Bay
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
By the end of fiscal year 2011, increase the percent of federal CWA discharge permit
enforcement actions that reduce pollutant discharges into impaired waterways from 20%
(FY 2009 baseline) to 25% and promote transparency and right-to-know by posting
results and analysis on the web.
EPA will initiate over the next two years, at least four drinking water standard reviews to
strengthen public health protection.
III. EPA will ensure that environmental health and protection is delivered to our communities.
• By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that
will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically
disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess and address
multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning
and cleanups and enabling redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale
than on individual sites. EPA will provide technical assistance, coordinate its
enforcement, water, and air quality programs, and work with other federal agencies,
states, tribes and local governments to implement associated targeted environmental
improvements identified in each community's area-wide plan.
968
-------
2009 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Summary of EPA Programs
Introduction: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or Recovery Act)
provided EPA with $7.22 billion for programs and projects. The purpose of the Recovery Act is
to create and save jobs, jumpstart the U.S. economy, and build the foundation for long-term
economic growth. EPA's programs and projects will help achieve these goals, and administer the
environmental laws that will govern Recovery activities. This funding was directed to activities
in the: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRFs), Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRFs), Superfund Hazardous Waste Fund (SF), Diesel Emissions Reduction (DERA),
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) and Brownfields programs.
EPA's Recovery Act website (http://www.epa.gov/recovery/) contains links and further details
including more up-to-date performance, financial and recipient reporting data. Tab 11 in this
Congressional Justification contains performance data of the regular appropriated "base"
programs as well as those of the 2009 Recovery Act.
EPA 2009 Recovery Act Funding Summary
(Dollars in Millions)
EPA Program
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Superfund Remedial
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks (LUST)
Brownfields
Diesel Emission Grants
(DERA)
Inspector General (IG)
Totals
Total
Appropriated
$4,000.0
$2,000.0
$600.0
$200.0
$100.0
$300.0
$20.0
$7,220.0
Current M&O
Budgets (1)
$31.0
$20.0
$18.0
$3.0
$3.5
$6.0
NA
$81.5
Program Budgets
(2)
$3,969.0
$1,980.0
$582.0
$197.0
$96.5
$294.0
NA
$7,118.5
Chart Notes:
1) ARRA authorized EPA to move a certain level of funding to the Environmental Programs
and Management (EPM) account for M&O activities, which are described in Program Project
Fact Sheet in the EPM Section of the Congressional Justification.
2) States are allowed to switch funding between the SRF programs, so the final SRF program
budget totals may change.
Overall Program Descriptions.
• CWSRFs - $4 Billion for capitalization grants awarded by the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) authorized by Title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control
969
-------
Act; and grants awarded to carry out planning under Clean Water Act Sections 205(j) and
303(e), pursuant to the reservation of CWSRF funds under Section 604(b);
• DWSRFs - $2 Billion for capitalization grants awarded by the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) authorized by Section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
• Superfund Remedial - $600 million for Superfund remedial program activities
authorized under Section 104 of the Comprehensive Emergency Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
• Diesel Emission Grants - $300 million for grants awarded by the Diesel Emissions
Reductions Program authorized by Title VII, Subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The $300 million is distributed among 4 DERA programs: the State Clean Diesel
Grant Program ($88 million), the National Clean Diesel Program ($156 million), the
Emerging Technology Program ($20 million), and the SmartWay Clean Diesel Finance
Program ($30 million) as well as $6 million for M&O.
• LUST (Tank) Cleanups. - $200 million for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) cleanup activities authorized under Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act; and
• Brownfields - $100 million for grants, cooperative agreements, and other activities
conducted by the Brownfields Program authorized by Section 104(k) of Comprehensive
Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Program Overviews of EPA ARRA Programs. Below are program descriptions for each of
EPA's Recovery Act programs, including overall program descriptions, project examples,
performance measures, funding sources, major process steps and description of particular
Recovery Act requirements if applicable.
1. Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs)
Program Description:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides funds to states to establish state loan
revolving funds that finance infrastructure improvements for public wastewater systems and
other water quality projects. For the District of Columbia and the territories, funds are used for
direct grants for similar purposes. 1.5 percent of the funds are set-aside for wastewater
infrastructure improvements on tribal lands. The objectives that have been established for the
CWSRF funding under ARRA will ensure program focus on beneficial, cost-effective project
development and implementation that creates jobs. CWSRF projects are selected based on
statutory principles (i.e., public health and water quality goals) carried out through state-
established priority systems.
ARRA created numerous requirements that did not apply previously to the Agency's SRF
programs (i.e., Buy American, Green Project Reserve, and Davis-Bacon). These requirements
created a challenge for EPA, states and tribes. However, the states are now proceeding toward
the goal of having all projects under contract or under construction by February 17, 2010, as
required by law.
970
-------
Examples:
• Gorst, Washington Sewage Treatment Plant Project will protect Puget Sound.
Construction of two sewer pump stations is scheduled for the summer of 2010. Sewer
lines will be buried in the ground to serve nearly 100 Gorst residents and nearly all the
businesses throughout the area. Much of the project's $5 million cost will be paid by the
federal economic stimulus program. Kitsap County health officials have been monitoring
failing septic systems in Gorst for years.
• EPA awarded the Navajo Nation $9.8 million for 30 wastewater projects benefiting the
Navajo Nation ranging from septic tank and drainfield upgrades and renovations to
restoration and repairs at several wastewater treatment facilities located within the Nation
to serve 4,577 homes. Funds will also be used to launch the first phase of a drinking
water line extension project. Over 20 percent of the Navajo ARRA will fund "green"
decentralized wastewater systems.
Strategic Plan and Performance Goals: The Clean Water SRF planned activities for states,
territories, and Indian country will support progress toward Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water of the
2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan.
More detailed information on CWSRF Recovery Act performance measures and results can be
found in the program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance measures impacted by
Recovery Act funding are annotated in the Congressional Justification.
Funding Source: 68-0102 - State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG).
Funding Process Steps. (Please note that these steps are similar to, but not exactly the same as,
those of the DWSRF program)
1. Federal Funding Steps
a. Appropriation - Congress passes and the President signs into law a bill giving money to
the agency for certain program
b. Apportionment - OMB distributed the funds to the appropriate accounts making the
funds available
c. Allotment - EPA allots funds to the State according to CWA formula or SDWA needs
survey
d. Application - State applies to EPA for grant award, including an Intended Use Plan that
includes:
i. How use of the fund will support the goals of SRF
ii. List of Projects including type and amount of assistance
iii. List of non-point and national estuary protection activities expect to be funded
(unique to CWSRF)
iv. Criteria and method for distribution of funds
v. Description of method used to select treatment projects (not a point based
selection system like DWSRF, but the logic does need to be explained)
e. Award and Obligation - EPA awards grants to States, obligating the funds to the States.
Please note dollars are obligated but no dollars are disbursed to states until Step 4.
971
-------
2. State Project Evaluation and Awards
a. State Evaluation - States evaluate and prioritize potential projects.
b. Assistance Agreements Approval - States award funds to projects in the form of loans,
and in the case of ARRA funds, potentially in the form of grants. (Note: States often
refer to this as their obligation - as with the above no funds are disbursed by the State.)
3. Recipients' Project Construction and Management
a. Contracts Awarded - Assistance recipient signs contracts in an amount equal to the
assistance received - allows construction to commence
b. Construction - Heavy construction normally take 18-36 months. Time varies by size,
location and complexity of the project, as well as by the affect of seasons.
c. Funds Outlay - As construction is completed, recipients incurs costs. (Note funds are
outlayed as construction is completed ending after construction is complete.)
4. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur costs and invoice State SRF program,
b. Recipients bill States. Recipients invoice State SRF programs
c. State review and reimbursement. State SRF programs evaluate claims and reimburses
costs
d. States submit claims to EPA - State submits reimbursement for incurred costs by
drawing down funds from EPA.
e. Federal Outlay - EPA evaluates draw-downs and either approves draw-downs or
requests adjustments (if needed)
Major Recovery Act SRF Additional Requirements and Process Changes. (Please note that
these also apply to the DWSRF program).
In implementing the $6 billion Recovery Act SRF program, EPA is on course to provide 5 times
as much funding in half the time than the program has in recent years - while complying with
significant additional legal and reporting requirements. Below are some of the major challenges
and additional requirements.
Accelerated Schedule. Previously SRF funds were appropriated with a two-year deadline to
contract the funds. The Recovery Act included a deadline that all funds had to be under contract
within one year - by February 17, 2010. All project funds that are not placed under contract must
be re-allotted to states that completely met their under-contract deadline and provided a list of
additional eligible projects to the Agency.
Additional Conditions. The Recovery Act included additional provisions and set asides.
• Davis-Bacon requires recipients to pay at prevailing wage rates and document their
compliance.
• "Buy American" provisions required the use of U.S.-made supplies in many cases where
previous suppliers had been foreign.
972
-------
• "Green" projects" included a requirement that 20% of projects would meet specific
"green criteria, to the extent there were sufficient applications . This new concept
required additional guidance and training from EPA.
• Matching Funds. ARRA funds could also be provided as grants, with no matching
requirements.
• Shovel-ready. ARRA projects had to be "shovel-ready" in order to meet the tight
requirements for project initiation.
• Reporting Requirements. ARRA also required all funding recipients to report on their
use of funds, including estimates jobs, project descriptions, etc.
State Actions.
• State Rules. States had in place legislation, policies and regulations to manage the SRF
funds and projects under the former rules. States had to change these in order to meet the
new ARRA schedule and requirements.
• Special Solicitations. Many States had to do a special solicitation for projects that would
meet ARRA's "shovel-ready" requirements.
• Amending State Rules. Some States had to amend underlying program statutes,
regulations, and policies to provide additional subsidies or otherwise obtain all necessary
authorities to prepare a complete capitalization grant application for ARRA.
Water Utilities and Contractor Actions.
• Adjusted Solicitations. For many utilities receiving assistance agreements, the "Buy
American" and Davis-Bacon requirements were unfamiliar. They had to adjust bid
solicitation and contract award processes accordingly.
• Contractor Compliance. Construction contractors and equipment suppliers, in many
cases, were likewise unfamiliar with these provisions and, together with the utilities,
required guidance and training from EPA.
• Reporting Requirements. Like the States, many utilities and contractors also had to meet
additional reporting requirements.
2. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs)
Program Description
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance
infrastructure improvements. The program also encourages providing funds to small and
disadvantaged communities and as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The DWSRF provides
funds to states to establish state loan revolving funds that finance infrastructure improvements
for publicly and privately owned Community Water Systems and not-for-profit Non-Community
Water Systems. The DWSRF is comprised of 51 state financing programs (includes Puerto
Rico) which are run in accordance with the federal statute and regulations.
Recovery Act funds will increase the amount of money that is available through state revolving
funds to provide assistance to drinking water facilities for planning, design, and construction of
drinking water treatment facilities and distribution systems. ARRA will also increase the percent
973
-------
of total funds available for DC and the territories through direct grants from EPA, and to Tribes
through an interagency agreement with the Indian Health Service (IHS). The objectives
established for the DWSRF Recovery Act funding will ensure program focus on beneficial, cost-
effective project development and implementation that creates jobs.
Examples:
• Central Shoshone County Water District received a $12.27 million low-interest drinking
water construction loan to construct a membrane micro-filtration water treatment plant
for the system's well in Enaville, Idaho (serves 5,838 connections). The project also
includes associated piping filtration and pumping upgrades. Because of the area's
modest median household income, the Central Shoshone County Water District is able to
qualify for a special loan program which carries very favorable repayment terms. The
District's new filtration plant is scheduled to be completed and online in February 2010.
• Buckeye Lake, Ohio remains one of the largest villages in the state without a public
drinking water system. Thanks in part to $5 million from the Recovery Act; the village
should have treated water by July 2010. In addition to Recovery Act money, the project
will receive $1.6 million from Ohio's Water Supply Revolving Loan Account. There are
a number of public health concerns surrounding the current wells and small public water
systems on which the village relies. Construction is already underway on the system
which will serve nearly 1,200 households when it is completed in July 2010. The
median household income for the village is below the state's average of $36,250.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance Goals The Drinking Water SRF planned activities for
states, territories, and Indian country will support progress toward Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan. More detailed information on DWSRF Recovery Act
performance measures can be found in the program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual
performance measures impacted by Recovery Act funding are annotated in the Congressional
Justification.
Funding Source: 68-0102 - State and Tribal Assistance Grants. DWSRFs are distributed
through states and tribes.
Funding Process Summary (Note similar to, but not exactly the same as CWSRF)
1. Federal Funding Process
a. Appropriation - Congress passes and the President signs into law a bill giving
money to the agency for certain program
b. Apportionment - OMB distributed the funds to the appropriate EPA accounts
making the funds available
c. Allotment - EPA allots funds to the State according to SDWA needs survey
d. Application - State applies to EPA for grant award, including an Intended Use Plan
that includes:
i. A comprehensive list of projects, and second list of projects that will be
funded that year.
ii. The type of assistance provided, including information on rates and terms.
974
-------
iii. All sources of funds for that year, including the grant, and the uses they will
be put to.
iv. Fund to go to loans and to set-aside activities
v. Description of any disadvantaged assistance program
e. Award and Obligation - EPA awards grants to States, obligating the funds to the
States. Please note dollars are obligated but no dollars are disbursed to states until
Step 4.
2. State Project Evaluation and Awards
a. State Evaluation - States evaluate and prioritize potential projects.
b. Assistance Agreements Approval - States award funds to projects in the form of
loans, and in the case of ARRA funds, potentially in the form of grants. (Note: States
often refer to this as their obligation - as with the above no funds are disbursed by the
State at the time of obligation.)
3. Recipients' Project Construction and Management
a. Contracts Awarded - Assistance recipient signs contracts in an amount equal to the
assistance received - allows construction to commence
b. Construction - Heavy construction normally take 18-36 months. Time varies by
size, location and complexity of the project, as well as by the affect of seasons.
c. Funds Outlay - As construction is completed, recipients incur costs. (Note funds are
outlayed as construction is completed ending after construction is complete.)
4. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur costs and invoice State SRF program,
b. Recipients bill States. Recipients invoice State SRF programs
c. State review and reimbursement. State SRF programs evaluate claims and
reimburses costs,
d. States submit claims to EPA - State submits reimbursement for incurred costs by
drawing down funds from EPA.
e. Federal Outlay - EPA evaluates draw-downs and either approves draw-downs or
requests adjustments (if needed)
Summary of Major Process Challenges in Obligating and Outlaying ARRA SRF funding.
(Please refer to those listed for the CWSRF above).
3. Hazardous Substance Superfund
Program Description:
The overall objectives for the Recovery Act funding for Superfund are to further cleanup at
National Priority List (NPL) sites, maximize job creation and retention, and provide
environmental and economic benefits. These objectives will be achieved by starting new cleanup
projects, accelerating cleanups at projects already underway, increasing the number of workers
and activities at cleanup projects, and returning affected sites to more productive use.
975
-------
The Recovery Act funding will provide immediate short and longer-term health, environmental,
and economic benefits at both new start and ongoing Superfund remedial projects. Cleanup
activities at Superfund sites receiving Recovery Act funds may also yield significant site-
specific, non-environmental economic benefits, including improved site property values and job
opportunities. Job sectors that will likely benefit from the Superfund Recovery Act funding
include, but are not limited to: cleanup operation and management companies, laboratory
sampling and analysis companies, hazardous waste disposal and management companies,
construction and monitoring equipment rental companies, water/soil treatment companies, and
environmental engineering and management companies.
Examples:
• In July, EPA awarded $15 million in Federal stimulus money to the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to support the Superfund Basin Property Remediation
Program. The Program has already cleaned up approximately 2.5 million square feet of
contaminated soil in each of the last four years. With the new funds, IDEQ plans to
clean up three million square feet in each of the next three years. This means the
property remediation will be done sooner. Currently, there are over 240 people
employed by DEQ and its contractors working on the accelerated program. There are
106 properties where cleanup is in progress.
• About $12 million in ARRA funds are being used to restore a South Minneapolis Soil
Contamination Site known as the Phillips neighborhood. The project requires
remediation of arsenic soil, which causes health problems ranging from cancer to
cardiovascular and nerve problems. The contamination was a result of operations from
a pesticide company in mid 1900s. The work includes restoration of lawns and yards.
This project includes work on 487 affected residential properties.
• The Richmond Mine, a source of the toxic stew that has polluted the Sacramento River
and its tributaries for more than a century, has killed thousands of fish and turned a
once-majestic mountain into a breeding ground for bacterial slime that helps create what
geologists say is the "world's worst water." Over the past two decades, the EPA has
made great progress toward stopping 98 percent of the historic discharge into the
Sacramento River, and now can address the threats to the important salmon spawning
grounds downstream.
• The EPA recently awarded $20.7 million in federal ARRA funds to clean up the heavy
metals that have flowed into and accumulated at the bottom of the Keswick Reservoir
for decades, threatening fish and potentially people. The ARRA funding, combined
with $10 million already budgeted for the project, will pay for construction of three
pumping stations, piping, and the hydraulic dredging, treatment and disposal of the
170,000 cubic yards of fine toxic metals that to this day coat the bottom of the Spring
Creek arm of the reservoir. Removing these contaminated sediments will also allow the
Central Valley Project to produce $3 to $6 million of additional peak power by
removing operational constraints that are currently needed on its hydropower facilities at
976
-------
Shasta Dam and the Spring Creek Power House to prevent contaminated sediment
releases.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance Goals Superfund ARRA funded remediation activities
directly support progress toward implementing Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration,
Objective 3.2 (Restore Land) of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan. More detailed information
on Superfund Recovery Act performance measures can be found in the program plans at
www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance measures impacted by Recovery Act funding are
annotated in the Congressional Justification.
Financial Source: 68-8195 - Hazardous Substance Superfund. (Please note that projected
obligations and outlays are contained in the attached spreadsheet.)
The majority of Superfund's ARRA dollars are direct Federal spending including contracts and
Funds-Out interagency agreements. EPA is working with the Army Corps of Engineers at sites
involving about $248 million worth of work. EPA is reporting this financial data on
Recovery.gov because although the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) manages the site work,
EPA manages the financial obligations and outlays. Some funding is also being directed through
state government and one cooperative agreement. The Superfund program has 99% of its
funding obligated, including funding at 51 sites, for a total of 61 projects.
Financial Process Steps / Funding Mechanisms. EPA used several processes and mechanisms
to deliver project funding quickly:
• Multi-Site Contracts: Prime contractor prepares a work plan for EPA approval. Once
approved the prime Remedial Action Contractor (RAC) prepares the subcontracting
paperwork for the remedial construction activities. The subcontract must be approved by
EPA before the subcontractor can begin work.
• Site-Specific Contracts: The full acquisition process is performed to award a contract
for the ARRA work.
• Interagency Assisted Acquisitions: The Agreement must be developed and approved
and then sent to the other agency for approval. Once the other agency has signed the
agreement, they must prepare the tasking documents to place the project under contract.
• Cooperative Agreements: The State submits a grant application for the Cooperative
Agreement. Once awarded the state or local entity may need to prepare contracting
materials to acquire the services of a contractor to perform the remediation.
Summary of Major Process Challenges in Obligating and Outlaying ARRA Superfund
funding.
The Recovery Act included additional provisions and reporting requirements for grantees and
contractors receiving EPA ARRA funds.
• Davis-Bacon requires recipients to pay at prevailing wage rates and document
compliance.
• "Buy American" provisions required the use of U.S.-made supplies. In many cases
previous suppliers had been foreign.
• Shovel-ready. ARRA projects had to be "shovel-ready" in order to meet the tight
requirements for project initiation.
977
-------
• Recipient Reporting Requirements. ARRA also required all funding recipients to
report on their use of funds, including jobs estimates, project descriptions, spending rates,
etc. Grantees and contractors required extensive guidance from EPA on how to fulfill
reporting requirements, particularly on reporting on estimated jobs.
• Contractor and Grantee Compliance. Many grantees, construction contractors and
equipment suppliers were unfamiliar with ARRA requirements and required EPA
guidance and training. EPA developed detailed guidance for grantees and contractors on
how to comply with additional requirements and conditions, including grant and contract
templates and modified Terms and Conditions.
4. Diesel Emissions (DERA) Grants Summary
Program Description
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), which was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct), provides funding to achieve significant reductions in diesel emissions from the 20
million engines in the existing fleet. These reductions in pollution improve air quality and
protect public health. The Recovery Act provided $300 million for grants for clean diesel
projects across the nation. These projects will create jobs and stimulate the economy through
purchases of equipment and vehicles which lower diesel emissions, such as pollution control
equipment, new clean engines, replacement vehicles, cleaner fuels and other products. The
grants may only go to eligible entities, per the statute: State, local, regional or tribal
governments, or certain non-profits. The program is divided into four sub-programs: a National
Regional Clean Diesel program; State Clean Diesel program; SmartWay Finance Clean Diesel
program; and Emerging Technologies Clean Diesel program.
Examples:
• EPA awarded a State Clean Diesel program grant to Utah Department of Environmental
Quality of $1.7 million to fund a project to retrofit approximately 300 school buses with
Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOCs) and Crankcase Ventilation (CCV) systems. In
addition, funding from this grant will also replace 20 existing school buses from 14
school districts with cleaner school buses.
• EPA awarded a National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance program grant to the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey of $7 million to fund a Regional Truck
Replacement Program targeting replacement of 600 pre-1994 drayage trucks that
regularly service the Port Authority's marine terminals with model year 2004 and newer
trucks.
• EPA awarded a National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance program grant to the Kentucky
Association of General Contractors of $2 million to retrofit, repower, or replace 87 pieces
of construction equipment from five fleets and pursue the voluntary adoption of reduced
idling practices at 100 construction sites throughout the state.
978
-------
Strategic Plan Link and Performance Goals
The DERA projects support Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change, Objective 1.1
(Healthier Outdoor Air) of the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. More detailed information on DERA
Recovery Act performance measures can be found in the program plans at www.Recovery.gov.
Annual performance measures impacted by Recovery Act funding are annotated in the
Congressional Justification.
Financial Source: Diesel Emissions (DERA) Grants - 68-0102 - State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG).
The DERA program provides funding through State, county, city and local Programs -
Competition Status. The DERA program awarded 160 grants from March through September,
2009, including 51 State Clean Diesel grants, 90 National Regional Clean Diesel program grants,
5 SmartWay Finance grants and 14 Emerging Technologies grants. The 51 State Clean Diesel
grants were awarded in March and April. The National Regional Clean Diesel program grants
were awarded from May through September. The SmartWay Finance and Emerging
Technologies grants were awarded in August and September, 2009. Work has begun on all
grants.
DERA Funding Process Summary Steps (Note that there is a different process for each of the
four DERA programs.)
National Competitive Grants
• Award Grant
o National Competition. Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation and Competition
certification (approval), including 40 Day RFP open period
o Review and Select Grantees
• Regional review panels (1 per Region) evaluate proposals
• Each review panel submits its initial funding recommendation to Regional
Approving Official
• Regional Approving Official make final selection
• Notify recipients
• Workplan and budget negotiations
• Project Officers prepare formal Funding Recommendation document in IGMS
• Final Terms & Conditions (required extensive work to revise to incorporate
additional ARRA requirements, including approval from OMB and
Department of Labor)
• Award approval process; Grants Office Award Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
Project Partners / Fleet. Find appropriate fleet and finalize fleet information from project
partners or sub-grant competition
• Sub-Grant Competition
979
-------
o RFP
o Review and Selection
o Finalize fleet information
o Final Terms and Conditions
Finalize partner agreements and/or sub-grant agreements
Select Technology
o Bid vendors/technologies
o Select vendor
o Data log vehicles and equipment (technical feasibility/compatibility testing for
selected technologies) (Projects can be delayed due to testing)
Purchase & Install Technology
o Orders placed for technology with vendors/ manufacturers (Occasionally shortages
of technologies and backlog because of low inventory)
o Davis-Bacon and/or Buy American Requirements for applicable projects
Reimbursement
o Grantees typically do not pay vendors and draw down funds until equipment has been
delivered/installed. Funds expended only after recipients draw down funding.
State Grants
Award Grant
o Notice of Intent to Apply
o Allocation to State
o Workplan and budget negotiations
o Project Officers prepare formal Funding Recommendation document in IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions (required extensive work to revise to incorporate
additional ARRA requirements, including approval from OMB and Department of
Labor)
o Award approval process; Grants Office Award Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
Project Partners / Fleets Find appropriate fleet and finalize fleet information from
project partners or sub-grant competition
Sub-Grant Competition
o RFP
o Review and Selection
o Finalize fleet information
o Final Terms and Conditions
Finalize partner agreements and/or sub-grant agreements
Select Technology
o Bid vendors/technologies
o Select vendor
o Data log vehicles and equipment (technical feasibility/compatibility testing for
selected technologies) (Projects can be delayed due to testing)
Purchase & Install Technology
o Orders placed for technology with vendors/ manufacturers (Occasionally shortages of
technologies and backlogs due to low inventory)
980
-------
o Davis-Bacon and/or Buy American Requirements for applicable projects
• Reimbursement
o Grantees typically do not pay vendors and draw down funds until equipment has been
delivered / installed. Funds expended only after recipients draw down funding.
Emerging Technology Grants
• National Competition. Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation and Competition
certification (approval), includes 40 Day RFP open period
• Review and Selection of Grantees
o Emerging Tech review panel to evaluates Emerging Tech proposals
o Review panel submits its initial funding recommendation to Approving Official
o Approving Official makes selection
o Notify recipients
o Workplan and budget negotiations
o Project Officer prepares formal Funding Recommendation document in IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions (required extensive work to revise to incorporate
additional ARRA requirements, including approval from OMB and Dept of
Labor.).
o Award approval process; Grants Office Award Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
• Finalize partner agreements and/or contracts and/or sub-grant agreements
• Order/Purchase & Install Technology
o Emerging Technology grant recipients have already partnered with an Emerging
Technology manufacturer and can sole-source the purchase of the Emerging
Technology.
o Data log vehicles and equipment (technical feasibility/compatibility testing for
selected technologies) (Can be delays due to testing)
• Emissions Testing
o The Emerging Technologies program supports the implementation of new, unverified
technologies. Many grantees include emissions testing as part of their workplan.
o Bid Labs/Consultants for emissions testing
o Select Lab/Consultant
• Evaluation of Technology
o The Emerging Technologies are operated and tested under a variety of conditions to
evaluate their performance.
SmartWay Grants
• Award Grant
o National Competition. Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation and Competition
certification (approval), including 40 Day RFP open period
o Review and Selection of Grantees
o Organize SmartWay review panel which reviews and evaluates SmartWay
proposals
981
-------
o Review panel submits its initial funding recommendation to Approving
Official
o Approving Official make final selection
o Notify recipients
o Workplan and budget negotiations
o Program Officer prepares formal Funding Recommendation document in
IGMS
o Final Terms & Conditions (required extensive work to revise to incorporate
additional ARRA requirements, including approval from OMB and Dept of
Labor.).
o Award approval process; Grants Office Award Official signs Funding
Recommendation document
• Set-Up Finance Program. Grant recipient works with project partners / subgrantees to
finalize any partnership agreements.
• Issue Loans and/or Order/Purchase Technologies for Lease
o Grantees draw down funds as needed to cover program expenses
• Technologies Leased and Installed
• Reimbursement
Summary of Major Process Challenges in Obligating and Outlaying ARRA DERA
funding. (Please refer to those listed for Superfund above).
5. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund
Program Description: The overall purpose for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Recovery Act funding is to clean up contaminated LUST sites effectively, while
maximizing job creation and retention and providing economic and environmental benefits (such
as protecting groundwater and cleaning up and reusing contaminated land) to the citizens of the
United States. These objectives will be achieved by overseeing assessments and cleanups at
shovel-ready sites or directly paying for cleanup activities at sites where the responsible party is
unknown, unwilling or unable to finance cleanup, or the cleanup requires an emergency
response.
Because the national Underground Storage Tank (UST) program is primarily implemented by
states and territories, the vast majority of Recovery Act money for this program will go to state
and territorial UST programs through cooperative agreements. Additionally, EPA implements
the UST program in Indian country, so money to clean up eligible tank leaks in Indian country
will be distributed and managed by EPA's regional UST programs through existing federal
contracts. The state and territorial cooperative agreements and EPA contracts will pay for
activities at shovel-ready sites to assess and clean up UST petroleum leaks, as well as staff
management and oversight activities that will leverage additional cleanups. The LUST planned
activities for states, territories, and Indian country will support progress toward Goal 3: Land
Preservation and Restoration, Objective 3.2: Restore Land of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic
Plan.
982
-------
Examples:
• Ashland Youth Center Complex, CA. is a petroleum-contaminated cleanup at a former
bulk fuel storage site in Alameda County, California. Over $15 million was distributed to
California and this is the first cleanup success in the state at a shovel-ready site. For the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program (LUST), federal funding can be used for
clean up where there is no financially responsible party to protect important groundwater
supplies. This former bulk oil storage site was left vacant for years due to the
contamination. The site will be developed into a Youth Center, 2 acre park and a school
gymnasium.
• EPA Region 5 and Illinois EPA are collectively providing $1.7 million in funding to
cleanup a contaminated East St. Louis, Illinois site that was once a car dealership. Work
began last summer at the site and once remedial action is complete, a local non-profit
organization intends to the land as a Farmer's Market, providing additional jobs in the
community.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance Goals ARRA LUST funds support Goal 3: Land
Preservation and Restoration, Objective 3.2: Restore Land of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic
Plan. More detailed information on LUST Recovery Act performance measures and results can
be found in the program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance measures impacted
by Recovery Act funding are annotated in the Congressional Justification.
Funding Source: 68-8196 - Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund:
Over 90% of the funding is through state governments, with some direct Federal spending. The
program largely used existing contract mechanisms to expedite funding. Funding is provided
through state grants and contracts. State grants are used to assess and clean up leaking
underground storage tank sites. Contracts are used to assess and clean up leaking underground
storage tank sites in Indian Country.
LUST Process Summary
The LUST program obligated 97% of available funds by the end of FY 2009.
1. Federal Funding Process
a. Appropriation - Congress passes and the President signs into law a bill giving money to
the agency for certain program
b. Apportionment - OMB distributed the funds to the appropriate accounts making the
funds available
c. Allocation - EPA allocates funds to the State according to CWA formula or SDWA
needs survey
d. Obligation. EPA obligates funds as outlined below.
2. EPA Grant Process. Grants are awarded and obligated pursuant to Agency standards and
practice. This process involves the following steps:
a. Developed allocation formula, based on state needs and eligible uses
983
-------
b. Developed grant guidelines (included extensive negotiation with Department of
Labor and OMB regarding Davis-Bacon requirements)
c. Negotiated work plans with states
d. Performed necessary administrative steps to ensure grants meet various requirements
(contained the necessary Terms and Conditions, etc.)
e. Obtained White House approval and conducted Congressional notification.
3. State Project Evaluation and Awards After receiving a grant from EPA, states need to take
the following actions before expending funds and ultimately completing sites:
a. Determine/confirm LUST eligibility of sites
b. Determine applicability and assure adherence to Davis-Bacon, Buy American, and
Infrastructure requirements
c. Obtain contract assistance to conduct site work; often including competing a contract,
developing task orders, and negotiating work plans.
d. After site work begins, states must await invoices from contractors
e. Finally, many LUST cleanups take multiple years to complete, leading to a delay in
expending all funds devoted to a particular site.
4. Site Work - Site work time varies by size, location and complexity of the project, as well as
by the affect of seasons. Recipient incur costs as work is completed .
5. Cost Reimbursement and Billing
a. Costs Incurred - Recipients incur costs and invoice,
b. Submit claims to EPA - Reimbursement for incurred costs submitted to EPA.
c. Federal Outlay - EPA requests for reimbursement and either approves draw-downs,
authorizes payments or requests adjustments (if needed)
Summary of Major Process Challenges in Obligating and Outlaying ARRA LUST funding.
(Please refer to process challenges listed for Superfund above.)
6. Brownfields - State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Program Description: A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of
which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. It is estimated that there are more than 450,000 brownfields in the U.S.
Passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002
expanded EPA's assistance to brownfields-impacted communities by providing new tools for the
public and private sectors to promote sustainable brownfields cleanup and reuse. The EPA
Brownfields Program has been instrumental in furthering the Agency's land revitalization goals.
Specifically, Brownfields funds awarded to communities, states, tribes, and other stakeholders
will facilitate the leveraging, creation and retention of jobs, and the leveraging of economic
investment, while helping to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields.
984
-------
Example:
• The Town of Sanford, Maine received a $200,000 brownfields cleanup grant for the
Sanford Mill site. On August 3, 2009, there was a groundbreaking event for the Sanford
Mill cleanup. This mill is located in the downtown area of Sanford, and the
redevelopment will be a mix of commercial and housing.
Strategic Plan Link and Performance Goals Brownfields cooperative agreements will support
progress toward Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, Objective 4.2 (Communities),
and Sub-objective 4.2.3 (Assess and Clean-Up Brownfields) of the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic
Plan. More detailed information on Brownfields Recovery Act performance measures can be
found in the program plans at www.Recovery.gov. Annual performance measures impacted by
Recovery Act funding are annotated in the Congressional Justification.
Funding Sources and Steps: 68-0102 - State and Tribal Assistance Grants- Brownfields
Major Funding Recipients include states, counties, tribes, local governments as well as non-
profits and councils of governments with some monies outlayed through direct Federal spending.
Brownfields used the existing FY09 Assessment, RLF and Cleanup Grant competition to award a
portion of ARRA funds, so a separate RFP was not issued for these awards.
Brownfields projects are typically approved when a cooperative agreement work plan has been
approved by EPA and the Agency has awarded the cooperative agreement. Targeted Brownfields
Assessment (TEA) projects are typically approved when funding has been obligated to a contract
to perform the TEA. The Brownfields Program defines "work started" as any cooperative
agreements awarded. The Brownfields Program defines "projects completed" as those
cooperative agreements and contracts that have drawn down 100% of funds and/or has closed out
the cooperative agreement or contract task order.
Process Steps:
The Process Steps for the Brownfields Program vary by the type of project agreement
(assessment cooperative agreement, clean up cooperative agreement or revolving loan funds).
The first steps of the Federal Funding were the same as with any appropriations:
1. Appropriation - Congress passes and the President signs into law a bill giving money to the
agency for certain program
2. Apportionment - OMB distributed the funds to the appropriate EPA accounts making the
funds available
3. Allocation - EPA allocates funds to the particular programs
4. Obligation - EPA programs obligate funds. To set up Brownfields Program targets EPA
depends on two main factors: 1) maturity of the projects and 2) the data entry from the
recipient into our reporting system (ACRES).
Brownfield Specific Processes. The "maturity" process of the different type of cooperative
agreements can be described as:
985
-------
For Assessment Cooperative Agreements:
• Recipient received and accepted cooperative agreement.
• Recipient has to prepare and publish a Request for Proposals to perform environmental
work.
• Recipient has to follow its own procurement process to select contractor and award
contract.
• Recipient requires site approval from EPA. (For petroleum sites, EPA or state has to make
a site determination.) Start entering data into the reporting database (ACRES) - Creation of
a work package.
• Environmental Assessment started.
• Environmental Assessment completed in accordance with program requirements.
• Regional approval of the work package with completion date of the environmental
assessment to be counted as accomplishment.
Based on past experiences this process can take between 6 to 12 months, assuming that the
recipient has an existing inventory of Brownfields properties available. If the recipient does not
have an inventory then the process can take longer than a year. The performance period of this type
of cooperative agreement is three years.
For Cleanup Cooperative Agreements:
• Site has been approved during competition.
• Recipient received and accepted cooperative agreement.
• Recipient has to prepare and publish a Request for Proposals to perform environmental
work.
• Recipient has to follow its own procurement process to select contractor and award
contract.
• Environmental cleanup activities starts. Start enter data into the reporting database
(ACRES) - Creation of a work package.
• Environmental cleanup completed in accordance with program requirements (meet target
definition). This action may take more than three years.
• Regional approval of the work package with completion date of the environmental
assessment to be counted as accomplishment.
Based on past experiences the cleanup process can take more than three years to be completed,
depending on the circumstances. The performance period of this type of cooperative agreement is
three years.
For Revolving Loan Funds (Cleanup):
• Recipient received and accepted cooperative agreement.
• Recipient notifies the availability of funds in the program.
• Recipient evaluates the loan and/or sub-grant applications, which includes site approval
from EPA. For petroleum sites, EPA or state has to make a site determination.
• Recipient awards loans or sub-grant. Start entering data into the reporting database
(ACRES) - Creation of a work package for each loan and/or sub-grant.
• Clean up starts.
986
-------
• Environmental cleanup completed in accordance with program requirements. This action
can take years to be completed.
• Regional approval of the work package with completion date of the environmental cleanup
to be counted as accomplishment.
Based on past experiences the loan process can take between 1 to 3 months (depending of the
complexity of the case). The cleanup completion will depend on the complexity of the property.
The performance period of this type of cooperative agreement is five years.
One vehicle that the program has to demonstrate progress under the ARRA is using the Targeted
Brownfields Assessments (TEA). We have a limited set-aside amount of ARRA funds to conduct
environmental assessments at specific properties using EPA regional and national contractors.
Typically, an environmental assessment conducted under a TEA will take one or two months to be
completed. Cleanups cannot be done under TEA.
Summary of Major Process Challenges in Obligating and Outlaying ARRA Brownfields
funding. (Please refer to process challenges listed for Superfund above.)
7. Management and Oversight (M&O)
Program Description: The ARRA granted EPA granted the authority to move monies into the
Environmental Programs and Management Appropriations for Recovery Act Management and
Oversight (M&O). To date, EPA has budgeted to use $81.5 million in the EPM account for
M&O activities. (Please refer to the Program Project J8 for a fuller description of each programs
planned use of M&O funding.)
EPA is coordinating its management and oversight activities thought extensive work of senior
level coordinating committees. The Agency has linked these activities through an overall EPA
Recovery Act Stewardship Plan. EPA published this plan on July 8, 2009 to identify areas of
potential risk and assure that the Agency had proper administrative and programmatic procedures
in place to address these risks. The Plan covers all programs funded with Recovery Act funds.
The plan details EPA plans and procedures in seven functional areas: 1) Grants, 2) Interagency
Agreements, 3) Contracts, 4) Payroll/Human Capital, 5) Budget Execution, 6) Performance
Reporting, and 7) Financial Reporting.
EPA's Recovery Act Stewardship Plan addresses all Recovery Act programs. EPA identified
risk assessments within each functional area and assigned a low, medium, or high level of risk.
These risk assessments cover all program areas serviced by the functional area risk assessment.
Development of the EPA Recovery Act Stewardship Plan was a collaborative effort that included
administrative, program, financial regional and headquarters staff and also included EPA's OIG
staff in an advisory role.
8. The Inspector General (IG)
The Recovery Act also provided "for an additional amount for the Office of Inspector General"
$20,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2012."
987
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
DE
The | lonorablc Peter R. Orszag
Director, Office of Management and Budge!
Hxecutive Office of the President
725 1 7th Street, NW
Washington, D.C, 20503
Dear Mr. Ors'zag:
As you are aware. The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app. 3,
§ fi(f)(3)(R) provides that:
"The President shall include in each budget of the United Stales Government
submitted to Congress— any comments of (he affected inspector General with
respect to the proposal if the Inspector General concludes that the budget submitted
by the President would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing
the duties of the office. "
Based on the proposed funding Icve for FY 201 1 ihat was provided in the passback
for the Environmental Protection Agency's (KPA) Office of Inspector General (Old), 1 am
providing the following comments for inclusion in the President's FY 201! Budget.
"The Old requested an FY 201! increase of §10 million above the targe! level
provided by EPA for the following reasons:
In the FY 2010 President's Budget, HPA requested; 1) SI.7 billion increase for the
CieanWater State Revolving Fund; 2) S671 million increase in the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund; and 3) $475 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The State
Revolving funds will provide grants to states for water infrastructure projects. The Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative will use funds to support projects targeting the most significant
problems of the Great Lakes.
988
-------
Grants funds have been long identified as areas of high risk and management
challenges in their potential for: misapplication from the intended environmental purpose,
lack of accountability, and potential for fraud. To help ensure essential transparency and
the greatest public environmental benefit, the OIG should provide oversight of how these
funds are used and whether desired results are achieved through financial, forensic, and
performance audits of EPA's State Revolving Fund programs, grants, interagency
agreements, and cooperative agreements. The OIG will also conduct assistance agreement
investigations of these same areas.
As Acting Inspector General, I have concluded that this specific increase in EPA's
FY 2010 budget for grants, without a specific corresponding increase in OIG audits and
investigations, substantially inhibits the OIG from performing its duties and renders the
grani funds vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse."
ff you or your staff have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss this matter
you may reach me at (202) 566-2212. or roderick,bill@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Jerick
Acting Inspector General
cc: The Honorable Jeffrey Zients
The Honorable Scott Fulton
The Honorable Phyllis Fong
989
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance.... 45, 241, 243, 245, 253, 258,
261, 322, 567, 578, 581, 585, 753, 774, 825, 953, 957, 958
Acquisition Management... 191, 198, 418, 421, 422, 552, 556, 609, 612, 613, 653, 655, 665, 921,
942, 945, 946
Administrative Law 191, 197,389,921,941
Air Toxics 48, 208, 210, 215, 246, 254, 401, 772
Air Toxics and Quality 55, 60, 63, 65, 66, 73, 75, 193, 194, 204, 207, 215, 216, 219, 222, 226,
554, 559, 936, 938, 939, 943
Air Toxics Monitoring 210
Alaska Native Villages 721, 724, 728
Alternative Dispute Resolution 191, 197, 391, 552, 556, 604, 921, 941, 945
Analytical Methods 89
Asbestos 351, 352, 482, 483, 774, 880, 908, 918
Asian Pacific Partnership 939
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 536, 537, 539, 552, 554, 562, 921, 943, 944
B
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 641, 859
Beach / Fish Programs 192, 199, 506, 921, 943
BRAC 577,641,643,859
Brownfields.... 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 39, 190, 193, 194, 228, 229, 230, 231, 300, 405, 493, 540, 557,
563, 635, 640, 647, 706, 709, 710, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 739, 740, 812, 813, 837, 861, 867,
901, 908, 912, 916, 921, 939, 945, 947, 948, 969, 970, 971, 985, 986, 987, 988
Brownfields Projects 28, 557, 635, 640, 647, 706, 709, 713, 714, 716, 921, 945, 947
C
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants 710, 719, 948
CASTNET 60,62,201
Categorical Grant
Lead 488
Local Govt Climate Change 706, 710, 747, 923, 948
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation 920
Sector Program 843, 953
Underground Storage Tanks 494, 679
Categorical Grants 476, 706, 710, 711, 736, 737, 739, 741, 743, 745, 747, 748, 750, 753, 754,
758, 763, 765, 768, 770, 774, 775, 776, 779, 783, 785, 924, 948, 949, 951, 953, 954, 956
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 191, 197, 419, 552, 556, 616, 653, 655, 666, 924, 942,
945, 946
Chemical and Pesticide Risks 33, 88, 107, 109, 112, 325, 356, 359, 370, 429, 434, 439, 443, 444,
461, 464, 480, 484, 745, 754, 809, 862
Chesapeake Bay3, 34, 35, 37, 38, 48, 161, 162, 190, 195, 247, 254, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291,
293, 412, 498, 499, 523, 528, 742, 817, 868, 869, 870, 883, 889, 890, 896, 927, 939, 969
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Children and other Sensitive Populations 337
Children and Other Sensitive Populations
Agency Coordination 191, 196, 337, 924, 940
Civil Enforcement.. 47, 48, 190, 195, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 250, 253, 254, 255, 259, 494,
555, 576, 579, 653, 654, 657, 658, 681, 682, 683, 684, 687, 688, 689, 691, 692, 872, 924, 939,
944, 946, 947
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance 191, 197, 393, 924, 941
Clean Air.. 16, 48, 60, 139, 200, 202, 204, 222, 224, 226, 227, 239, 246, 254, 266, 413, 770, 775,
844, 873
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 53, 55, 60, 193, 202, 924, 936, 938
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 60, 63, 65, 66, 73, 75, 78, 88, 96, 98,
204, 207, 215, 216, 219, 222, 226, 233, 322, 330, 333, 559, 719, 734, 747, 768, 770, 775, 833,
844, 980
Clean and Safe Water 9, 10, 12, 21, 84, 123, 130, 187, 322, 370, 506, 510, 520, 525, 721, 723,
727, 737, 750, 754, 758, 765, 779, 835, 850, 951, 952, 955, 972, 975
Clean Diesel Initiative 194, 938
Clean School Bus Initiative 709, 924, 947
Clean Water . 48, 239, 246, 254, 285, 305, 306, 497, 500, 504, 525, 533, 588, 688, 691, 723, 750,
751, 758, 786, 854, 869, 955, 956
Climate Protection Program 53, 55, 56, 77, 78, 190, 194, 195, 232, 233, 924, 936, 939
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 197, 481, 846, 873, 924, 941
Communities 1, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 33, 34, 36, 39, 88, 107, 109, 112, 116, 138, 142,
147, 151, 155, 175, 181, 214, 229, 230, 231, 247, 250, 256, 263, 269, 286, 294, 297, 300, 303,
305, 308, 312, 315, 325, 333, 335, 337, 338, 339, 345, 356, 359, 367, 370, 374, 382, 403, 404,
405, 408, 429, 434, 439, 441, 442, 443, 448, 449, 461, 464, 480, 484, 496, 501, 525, 570, 586,
619, 648, 650, 713, 714, 717, 731, 739, 745, 754, 785, 810, 812, 837, 847, 862, 866, 911, 954,
956, 959, 986
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) 39, 195, 315, 896, 940
Compliance 3, 9, 11, 13, 29, 45, 47, 48, 60, 81, 175, 190, 191, 195, 197, 200, 201, 240, 241, 242,
243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 261, 262, 266, 290, 322, 340, 351,
359, 362, 382, 393, 403, 413, 454, 472, 492, 494, 552, 554, 555, 566, 567, 568, 577, 578, 581,
582, 585, 598, 631, 653, 654, 656, 657, 658, 673, 675, 678, 681, 682, 683, 684, 686, 687, 688,
689, 692, 706, 711, 741, 748, 753, 763, 774, 776, 784, 798, 825, 840, 843, 871, 872, 873, 894,
905, 912, 917, 918, 923, 924, 925, 939, 941, 944, 946, 947, 948, 953, 957, 958, 974, 979
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.... 9, 45, 81, 200, 241, 243, 245, 253, 258, 261, 266,
322, 340, 351, 362, 403, 454, 472, 581, 582, 753, 774, 776, 871, 953, 957, 958
Compliance Assistance and Centers.. 190, 195, 241, 243, 246, 254, 555, 653, 654, 657, 658, 681,
682, 683, 684, 687, 843, 924, 939, 944, 946, 947, 957
Compliance Incentives... 47, 48, 190, 195, 243, 244, 246, 250, 254, 256, 555, 657, 687, 688, 689,
843, 925, 939, 944, 958
Compliance Monitoring. 47, 48, 190, 195, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 261, 262, 494,
552, 555, 567, 568, 581, 657, 683, 684, 687, 688, 689, 925, 939, 944, 947, 957, 958
Computational Toxicology 142, 143
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 191, 196, 342, 555, 925, 941, 944
Congressionally Mandated Projects 57, 195, 709, 925, 938, 939, 947
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Corrective Action 451, 744, 859
Criminal Enforcement... 49, 190, 195, 258, 259, 401, 552, 555, 578, 579, 826, 872, 925, 939, 944
D
Decontamination 56, 87, 89, 90, 196, 555, 588, 651, 936, 940, 944
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program 706, 710, 719, 925, 947, 948
Drinking Water 123, 124, 125, 188, 510, 512, 575, 727, 765, 779
Drinking Water Programs 54, 58, 187, 192, 199, 510, 925, 938, 943
E
Ecosystems9, 10, 13, 33, 43, 53, 57, 58, 61, 88, 107, 109, 112, 116, 119, 137, 138, 142, 147, 151,
155, 157, 160, 167, 168, 172, 175, 181, 192, 198, 199, 229, 263, 269, 286, 294, 295, 297, 300,
303, 305, 308, 312, 314, 315, 318, 325, 337, 356, 359, 361, 367, 370, 374, 403, 429, 433, 434,
438, 439, 442, 443, 450, 461, 462, 464, 471, 479, 480, 484, 495, 496, 498, 501, 536, 552, 556,
570, 586, 618, 619, 650, 713, 731, 739, 745, 754, 785, 814, 837, 862, 867, 932, 938, 943, 945,
954, 956, 959, 986
Endocrine Disrupter i trj i Ao
Endocrine Disrupters 43, 147, 148, 149, 150, 181, 183, 192, 198,444,461,925^942
Energy Star 18, 233, 417, 608
Energy STAR 55, 194, 936, 939
Enforcement. 3, 29, 30, 31, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 80, 81, 190, 195, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246,
247, 248, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 266, 289, 290, 353, 359, 401,
410, 416, 494, 552, 555, 567, 569, 570, 572, 573, 574, 576, 578, 579, 581, 582, 583, 653, 654,
657, 658, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 706, 710, 753, 760, 774, 798,
826, 860, 861, 871, 872, 873, 892, 894, 898, 912, 919, 922, 925, 933, 936, 939, 944, 946, 947,
948
Enforcement Training 190, 195, 248, 250, 258, 261, 262, 416, 552, 555, 578, 581, 872, 925, 939,
944
Enhance Science and Research.... 14, 21, 26, 33, 88, 116, 123, 128, 130, 135, 138, 142, 145, 147,
151, 154, 155, 170, 172, 175, 179, 181, 586, 619, 624, 628, 631, 644, 669, 671, 704, 705, 794,
801, 808, 820, 850, 857, 861, 871, 877
Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research 828
Environment and Trade 197,926,941
Environmental Education 191, 196, 299, 318, 340, 341, 344, 345, 876, 879, 926, 940
Environmental Information 881
Environmental Justice 34, 40, 45, 48, 124, 190, 195, 255, 263, 264, 265, 267, 552, 555, 570, 867,
926, 939, 944
Environmental Protection / Congressional Priorities 195, 939
Exchange Network 191, 196, 250, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 360, 382, 383, 384, 386, 552, 555,
592, 593, 594, 598, 708, 741, 742, 881, 882, 883, 919, 926, 941, 944
Exploratory Grants 163
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations... 53, 56, 57, 104, 105, 191, 197, 416, 418, 422, 544, 545,
550, 551, 552, 556, 607, 608, 613, 653, 655, 663, 683, 684, 685, 701, 926, 937, 941, 942, 943,
945, 946, 947
Federal Stationary Source Regulations 72, 190, 193, 204, 926, 938
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 53, 55, 63, 64, 65, 190, 193, 194, 207, 215, 720,
775, 926, 936, 938
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 53, 55, 64, 65, 190, 194, 214, 215, 926, 936, 938
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certificate 53, 55, 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 926, 936
Financial Assistance Grants / TAG Management 191, 198, 424, 552, 556, 610, 927, 942, 945
Forensics Support 53, 56, 81, 552, 555, 582, 927, 936, 944
G
General Counsel... 94, 101, 104, 288, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391, 393, 395, 396,
398, 400, 409, 413, 416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605,
607, 610, 612, 614, 616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701
Geographic Program
Chesapeake Bay 190, 195, 247, 254, 286
Great Lakes 195
Gulf of Mexico 190, 195,308,498
Lake Champlain 190, 195,312
Long Island Sound 190, 195,305
Mississippi River Basin 190, 195, 303, 498, 927, 940
Other 190, 195,315
Puget Sound 190, 195,297,927,939
San Francisco Bay 190, 195,294,927,939
South Florida 190, 195, 300, 928, 940
Geographic Programs. 190, 193, 195, 196, 268, 269, 286, 294, 297, 300, 303, 305, 308, 312, 315,
939, 940, 959
Global Change 19,20, 117
Great Lakes 37, 132, 269, 285, 500, 504, 506, 507, 737, 786, 853, 868, 869
Great Lakes Legacy Act 198,273,285,928,943
Great Lakes Restoration.... 3, 37, 190, 195, 269, 270, 271, 272, 278, 279, 543, 565, 868, 928, 939
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry 194, 939
Gulf of Mexico 37, 308, 309, 498, 520, 522, 856, 857, 870
H
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance 743
Healthier Indoor Air 14, 96, 98, 330, 333, 768, 790, 846
Healthier Outdoor Air 14, 60, 63, 65, 66, 73, 88, 204, 207, 215, 216, 322, 333, 719, 734, 768,
770, 775, 788, 844, 980
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.. 9, 10, 13, 33, 88, 107, 109, 112, 116, 138, 142, 147, 151,
155, 175, 181, 229, 263, 269, 286, 294, 297, 300, 303, 305, 308, 312, 315, 325, 337, 356, 359,
367, 370, 374, 403, 429, 434, 439, 443, 461, 464, 480, 484, 496, 501, 570, 586, 619, 713, 731,
739, 745, 754, 785, 837, 862, 954, 956, 959, 986
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Homeland Security 24, 29, 53, 56, 76, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 94, 190, 191, 196, 220, 221, 319,
320, 321, 322, 325, 327, 356, 381, 401, 447, 466, 470, 544, 545, 546, 547, 551, 552, 555, 584,
585, 586, 589, 597, 636, 637, 664, 710, 823, 843, 847, 848, 860, 868, 870, 879, 880, 889, 897,
898, 922, 928, 936, 937, 940, 943, 944, 948, 951
Communication and Information 190, 196, 320
Critical Infrastructure Protection 53, 56, 84, 190, 196, 322, 552, 555, 585
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 53, 56, 88, 191, 196,325,466, 552, 555, 586
Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure.. 53, 56, 94, 191, 196, 327, 544, 545, 547, 552,
555,589
HPV/VCCEP 198,942
Human Health 21, 42, 45, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 84, 87, 107, 119, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 145, 147,
149, 151, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163, 167, 168, 170, 172, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 191, 192,
198, 199, 200, 271, 322, 361, 362, 365, 429, 433, 438, 442, 450, 462, 471, 479, 505, 506, 510,
536, 552, 556, 618, 619, 620, 621, 650, 727, 737, 748, 749, 754, 765, 776, 779, 795, 810, 821,
822, 827, 840, 850, 876, 928, 932, 937, 938, 942, 943, 945, 951, 952
Human Health Risk Assessment 42, 53, 57, 138, 139, 140, 170, 181, 552, 556, 619, 620, 621,
822, 840, 928, 938, 945
Human Resources Management 191, 198, 426, 552, 556, 614, 655, 928, 942, 945, 946
I
Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship
Practices 45, 266, 340, 341, 351, 403, 454, 472, 741, 763, 826
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country.. 45, 51, 200, 362, 748, 776, 827,
876
Indoor Air... 14, 17, 53, 56, 95, 96, 98, 99, 191, 196, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 768, 769,
790, 791, 833, 846, 871, 929, 937, 940
Radon Program 53,56,96, 191, 196,330
Information Exchange / Outreach 191, 196, 200, 336, 337, 340, 342, 346, 351, 354, 356, 359,
362, 552, 555, 556, 591, 592, 940, 941, 944
Information Security.. 191, 197, 257, 320, 344, 349, 358, 380, 381, 386, 397, 420, 433, 450, 453,
462, 471, 479, 490, 504, 540, 542, 552, 556, 564, 593, 596, 597, 601, 650, 831, 882, 910, 929,
941, 945
Infrastructure Assistance 367, 706, 709, 710, 721, 723, 727, 731, 929, 947, 948, 952
Mexico Border 367
Inspector General. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391,
393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413, 416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 536, 537, 539, 542, 543, 547, 550, 554,
562, 564, 565, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616, 660, 663,D665, 666,
694, 701, 883, 885, 910, 943, 970, 988
International Capacity Building 197, 929, 941
International Programs 191, 197, 366, 367, 370, 374, 941
International Sources of Pollution 191, 197, 370, 929, 941
IT/Data Management... 53, 56, 100, 101, 191, 197, 379, 380, 382, 552, 556, 595, 596, 598, 653,
654, 659, 660, 683, 684, 693, 694, 929, 937, 941, 945, 946, 947
IT/Data Management/ Security... 53, 56, 100, 101, 191, 197, 379, 380, 382, 552, 556, 595, 596,
598, 653, 654, 659, 660, 683, 684, 693, 694, 937, 941, 945, 946, 947
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Laboratory Preparedness and Response 56, 555, 936, 944
Lake Champlain 285,500,504,786
Lake Pontchartrain 195, 315, 317, 318, 940
Land Preservation and Restoration 9, 10, 12, 26, 170, 253, 325, 446, 451, 454, 492, 572, 576,
586, 624, 634, 637, 639, 644, 651, 657, 669, 673, 676, 678, 681, 687, 688, 691, 697, 704, 743,
783, 836, 858, 978, 983, 984
Land Protection 671, 705
Land Protection and Restoration 671, 705
Lead 260, 324, 484, 488, 511, 513, 745, 746, 866
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 191, 197, 388, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398,400,
403, 409, 413, 552, 556, 603, 604, 605, 941, 945
Legal Advice
Environmental Program 191, 197, 396, 552, 556, 605, 930, 941, 945
Support Program 191, 197, 398, 930, 941
Long Island Sound 305,307, 522
LUST /UST 192, 198, 491, 492, 653, 655, 672, 673, 676, 678, 930, 942, 943, 946, 947
LUST Cooperative Agreements 653, 655, 676, 930, 946
LUST Prevention 653, 655, 678, 679, 930, 946
M
Marine Pollution 192, 199,520,856,930,943
Methane to markets 194, 939
Methane to Markets 234
Mexico Border 38, 191, 197, 324, 367, 534, 706, 707, 710, 731, 732, 733, 813, 866, 910, 929,
941, 948
Mississippi River Basin 3, 21, 34, 38, 132, 190, 195, 247, 250, 303, 304, 308, 309, 311, 498, 525,
526, 535, 940
Monitoring Grants 710, 948
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation 363, 706, 710, 748, 920, 924, 948
N
NAAQS 42, 64, 139, 140, 204, 207, 208, 210, 770, 771
Nanotechnology 32, 163
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways 192, 199, 496, 930, 943
NEPA Implementation 190, 195,266,267,930,939
Not Specified 930,949
O
OARM.. 94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413,
416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614,
616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701, 880
OCFO... 94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413,
416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614,
616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701, 880
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
OECA 798,860,872,873
OEI94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 385, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413,
416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614,
616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701, 881, 882, 883
Office of Environmental Information.. 94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391,
393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413, 416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598,
604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701, 881, 907
Office of the Chief Financial Officer... 94, 101, 104, 131, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389,
391, 393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413, 416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596,
598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701, 880, 907
OGC 94, 101, 104, 320, 327, 342, 346, 354, 380, 382, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 400, 409, 413,
416, 419, 421, 424, 426, 539, 547, 550, 562, 589, 592, 596, 598, 604, 605, 607, 610, 612, 614,
616, 660, 663, 665, 666, 694, 701
Oil.... 6, 7, 10, 12, 31, 74, 75, 76, 93, 101, 104, 170, 219, 221, 241, 245, 253, 321, 326, 382, 386,
416, 418, 550, 551, 567, 585, 588, 598, 607, 609, 624, 637, 657, 660, 663, 669, 681, 683, 684,
687, 688, 691, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 701, 704, 861, 911, 924, 925, 926, 929, 930, 932,
947, 957
Oil Spill
Prevention, Preparedness and Response 683, 684, 697, 930, 947
Operations and Administration 53, 56, 57, 103, 104, 191, 197, 198, 415, 416, 419, 421, 424, 426,
544, 545, 549, 550, 552, 556, 606, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616, 653, 654, 655, 662, 663, 665, 666,
683, 684, 685, 700, 701, 937, 941, 942, 943, 945, 946, 947
OPPTS 182,839
ORD... 142, 147, 150, 178, 794, 802, 803, 821, 822, 823, 824, 828, 829, 834, 836, 837, 838, 839,
840, 864, 877, 883
OW 802
P
Particulate Matter 139
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY 787,788
Pesticides and Toxics 182
Pesticides Licensing.. 36, 53, 57, 106, 107, 109, 112, 191, 198, 428, 429, 434, 439, 443, 937, 942
Pollution Prevention 52, 79, 93, 239, 326, 459, 699, 763, 764, 874
Pollution Prevention Program 192, 198,472,476, 763, 764, 827, 931, 942
POPs Implementation 197, 930, 941
Potomac Highlands 318
Preserve Land 26, 31, 446, 454, 492, 657, 673, 678, 681, 743, 783, 804, 858
Protect Human Health.. 21, 53, 57, 84, 87, 107, 187, 191, 198, 322, 429, 506, 510, 727, 737, 754,
765, 779, 795, 810, 850, 930, 937, 942, 951, 952
Protect the Ozone Layer 14,222,226,791, 846
Protect Water Quality ... 21, 370, 520, 525, 721, 722, 723, 750, 758, 798, 853, 951, 954, 955, 956
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 512, 765
Puerto Rico 726,952
Puget Sound 190, 195, 290, 297, 298, 299, 499, 523, 741, 820, 939, 972
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Radiation 14, 19, 53, 55, 62, 73, 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 91, 96, 98, 117, 139, 140, 190, 194, 216, 217,
218, 219, 382, 515, 552, 554, 559, 560, 598, 651, 747, 792, 834, 848, 849, 875, 897, 905, 912,
931,936,938,943
Protection [[[ 53, 55, 73, 190, 194, 216, 552, 554, 559
Response Preparedness [[[ 53, 55,75, 190, 194,219
Radon [[[ 17, 96, 332, 768, 769
RCRA
Corrective Action [[[ 191, 198,451
Waste Management [[[ 191, 198, 446
Waste Minimization & Recycling [[[ 192, 198, 454
Recovery Act - EPM [[[ 6
Recovery Act - IG [[[ 6
Recovery Act - LUST [[[ 6
Recovery Act - SF [[[ 6
Recovery Act - STAG [[[ 6
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions [[[ 454, 793
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air .......................................... 53, 56, 98, 191, 196, 333, 931, 937, 940
Regional Geographic Initiatives [[[ 195, 843, 931, 940, 959
Regional Science and Technology [[[ 191, 197, 400, 932, 941
Regions [[[ 128, 253, 304, 344, 401, 404, 801, 844, 859, 862, 873
Regulatory Innovation [[[ 191, 197, 231, 403, 404, 405, 932, 941
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis ..................................... 191, 197, 409, 932, 941
Rent [[[ 56, 197, 556, 655, 684, 901, 937, 942, 945, 946, 947
Research
Clean Air [[[ 53, 57, 115, 116, 933, 937
Clean Water [[[ 53, 57, 122, 123, 130
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Restore Land 26, 253, 325, 446, 451, 492, 572, 576, 577, 586, 634, 637, 639, 644, 651, 673, 676,
687, 688, 691, 697, 743, 805, 858, 978, 983, 984
S
Safe Building 56,936
San Francisco Bay 190, 195,294,295,296,499,523,939
Science Advisory Board .... 124, 130, 156, 157, 182, 191, 197, 217, 413, 414, 478, 486, 878, 879,
933, 941
Science Policy and Biotechnology 191, 198, 443, 933, 942
Security 24, 29, 52, 53, 56, 57, 67, 76, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101,
105, 177, 190, 191, 196, 197, 220, 221, 236, 255, 257, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327,
328, 337, 338, 339, 344, 349, 356, 358, 379, 380, 381, 382, 386, 397, 420, 433, 447, 450, 453,
462, 466, 470, 471, 479, 490, 504, 518, 540, 542, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 551, 552, 555, 556,
584, 585, 586, 589, 590, 593, 595, 596, 597, 598, 601, 636, 637, 650, 653, 654, 659, 660, 664,
683, 684, 693, 694, 710, 823, 831, 845, 847, 848, 860, 861, 868, 870, 872, 879, 880, 882, 886,
889, 897, 898, 908, 910, 936, 937, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 951
Sign Language 427
Small Business Ombudsman 191, 196, 351, 352, 880, 933, 941
Small Minority Business Assistance 191, 196, 354, 355, 933, 941
Smart Growth 39, 229, 230, 376, 404, 405, 408, 494, 875
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness 191, 196, 356, 933, 941
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) 367, 472, 706, 709, 710, 712, 713, 719, 721, 723,
727, 731, 734, 745, 770, 947, 948, 972, 980, 985
Stratospheric Ozone
Domestic Programs 190, 194, 222, 933, 939
Multilateral Fund 190, 194, 226, 933, 939
Superfund
Emergency Response and Removal 552, 556, 634
Enforcement 552, 555, 572
EPA Emergency Preparedness 553, 557, 637
Federal Facilities 552, 553, 555, 557, 576, 639, 934, 944
Federal Facilities Enforcement 552, 555, 576, 860, 934, 944
Remedial 553,557,644
Support to Other Federal Agencies 553, 557, 651
Superfund Cleanup 552, 556, 557, 633, 634, 637, 639, 644, 651, 945, 946
Surface Water Protection 192, 199, 303, 498, 525, 536, 760, 934, 943
T
Targeted Airshed Grants 706, 710, 734, 934, 948
Targeted Watersheds 954
Toxic Research and Prevention 54, 58, 180, 181, 938
Toxic Substances
Chemical Risk Management 192, 198,480
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction 192, 198,464,470
Lead Risk Reduction Program 192, 198,484
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention 192, 198, 460, 461, 464, 472, 480, 484, 942
Trade and Governance 191, 197, 374, 934, 941
TRI / Right to Know 191, 196, 359, 934, 941
Tribal - Capacity Building 190, 191, 196, 200, 362, 934, 941
Tribal General Assistance Program 362
U
Underground Storage Tanks 248,657,681, 859
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 192, 198, 491, 492, 653, 655, 672, 673, 676, 678,
942, 946, 947
US Mexico Border 191, 197,367,935,941
Utilities 56, 197, 532, 556, 852, 854, 937, 942, 945, 974
W
Waste Management 171, 446, 447, 743, 858
Water
Ecosystems 192, 198, 199, 495, 496, 501
Human Health Protection 54, 58, 186, 187, 192, 199, 505, 506, 510, 943
Water Quality 130, 131, 300, 435, 524, 722, 758, 853, 857, 869
Water Quality Protection 192, 199, 300, 519, 520, 525, 943
Water Sentinel 56,936
Wetlands .... 192, 199, 277, 285, 300, 301, 314, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 536, 706, 711, 785, 786,
814, 868, 908, 911, 915, 923, 935, 943, 949
-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
-------
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Tons of SOi emissions from electric power generation sources (tons/yr from
1980 baseline) (program assessment measure)
Performance Databases:
Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SC>2 and NOX emissions
• Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) - dry deposition
• National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition
• Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems program (TIME) - surface water
chemistry
Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) - surface water chemistry
Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of
SO2, NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than
3,400 fossil fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. These
measurements are collected by certified continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) or equivalent continuous monitoring methods.
CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically,
CASTNET measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at
approximately 88 monitoring sites, primarily in the East. CASTNET is a long-term dry
deposition network funded, operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR). The National Park Service operates approximately 30 of the
monitoring stations in cooperation with EPA.
NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation
chemistry and provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and
deposition of precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of
sulfate and nitrate wet deposition at approximately 255 monitoring sites. EPA, along
with several other Federal agencies, states, and private organizations, provide funding
and support for NADP. The Illinois State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains
the NADP database.
The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years. They
provide invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition;
such data are essential for assessing progress toward the program's intended
environmental outcomes. These networks need to be modernized to ensure the continued
availability of these direct environmental measures. Maintaining a robust long-term
atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of the Acid
Rain and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Programs (and/or Clear Skies if new
legislation is enacted).
-------
The TIME project measures surface water chemistry and is based on the concept of a
probability sample, where each site is chosen to be statistically representative of a target
population. In the Northeast (New England and the Adirondacks), this target population
consists of lakes likely to be responsive to changes in rates of acidic deposition (i.e.,
those with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L). In the Mid-Atlantic, the target population is upland
streams with a high probability of responding to changes in acidic deposition (i.e.,
Northern Appalachian Plateau streams with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L). Each lake or stream
is sampled annually (in summer for lakes, in spring for streams), and results are
extrapolated to the target population. The most recent (2003) TIME trends analysis
reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30 New England lakes, and 31 Appalachian
Plateau streams.
The TIME project goals are to determine not only how a representative sample of water
bodies is changing through time, but also whether the proportion of the population that is
acidic has changed. The project is operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in
state agencies, academic institutions and other federal agencies.
The LTM project complements TIME's statistical approach to sampling lakes and
streams. LTM samples a subset of sensitive lakes and streams with long-term data, most
dating back to the early 1980s. These sites are sampled 3 to 15 times per year. This
information is used to characterize how the most sensitive aquatic systems in each region
are responding to changing deposition, as well as providing information on seasonal
chemistry and episodic acidification. In most regions, a small number of higher ANC
(e.g., GranANC >100 ueq/L) sites are also sampled, and help separate temporal changes
due to acidic deposition from those attributable to other disturbances such as changes in
land use. The most recent (2003) LTM trends analysis reported data from 48 Adirondack
lakes, 24 New England lakes, 9 Northern Appalachian Plateau streams, and 69 streams in
the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and West Virginia. The project is operated
cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state agencies, academic institutions and
other federal agencies.
Methods, Assumption, and Suitability: Promulgated methods are used to aggregate
emissions data across all United States' utilities for each pollutant and related source
operating parameters such as heat input.
QA/QC Procedures: Promulgated QA/QC requirements dictate performing a series of
quality assurance tests of CEMS performance. For these tests, emissions data are
collected under highly structured, carefully designed testing conditions, which involve
either high quality standard reference materials or multiple instruments performing
simultaneous emission measurements. The resulting data are screened and analyzed using
a battery of statistical procedures, including one that tests for systematic bias. If a CEM
fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic underestimation of emissions, the
source of the error must be identified and corrected or the data are adjusted to minimize
the bias. Each affected plant is required to maintain a written QA plan documenting
-------
performance of these procedures and tests. Further information is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html.
CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001.
The QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy
and precision. (U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air
Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November 2001)}. In addition, the program publishes
annual quality assurance reports. Both the CASTNET QAPP and 2003-7 Annual Quality
Assurance Report may be found at
http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs/annual_report_2007.pdf
NADP has established data quality objectives and quality control procedures for
accuracy, precision and representation, available on the Internet:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/. The intended use of these data is to establish spatial and
temporal trends in wet deposition and precipitation chemistry.
For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, laboratory methods, and quality assurance
procedures are specific to each research group. QA/QC information is contained in the
cited publications of each research group and compiled in Newell et al. (1987). The
EMAP and TIME protocols and quality assurance methods are generally consistent with
those of the LTM cooperators, and are detailed in Peck (1992) and in Table 3 of
Stoddard, etal (2003).
Data Quality Review: The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting
problems, format errors, and inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are
described at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/report-emissions.html All quarterly
reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and to identify reports that must be resubmitted
to correct problems. EPA also identifies reports that were not submitted by the
appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly reports, with corrected deficiencies
found during the data review process, must be obtained from sources by a specified
deadline. All data are reviewed, and preliminary and final emissions data reports are
prepared for public release and compliance determination.
CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and
the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in
Examination of CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs, and Implications (United States EPA,
Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, February
1997).
The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer
review; this process has been managed by NADP program office at the Illinois State
Water Survey/University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are
developed primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the
technical literature process.
-------
The TIME and LTM data used in EPA trends analysis reports are screened for internal
consistency among variables, including ion balance and conductance balance. Samples
with unexplained variation in these variables are deleted. Sites with mean Gran ANC
greater than 200 ueq/L also are deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites with chloride
values that are outliers in their region, because high Cl- is typically associated with
human development in the watershed. The Cl- and associated Na+ would alter normal
soil ion exchange relationships, thus obscuring the response to acidic deposition.
Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional
monitoring sites are needed, particularly in the middle of the country.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program plans to modernize and enhance
CASTNET to ensure network viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support
ongoing and future accountability needs, particularly relating to long range pollutant
transport.
References: For additional information about CASTNET, see
http://www.epa.gov/castnet and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html and in the electronic Code of Federal
Regulations at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR
parts 72-78.)
For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term
monitoring of Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X-
91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Stoddard, J. L., J. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R. DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, J.
H. Kellogg, P. S. Murdoch, J. R. Webb, and K. E. Webster. 2003. Response of surface
water chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-03/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
FY 2011Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient
concentration of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored
counties from 2003 baseline (program assessment measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient
concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline
(program assessment measure)
Performance Databases:
AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to
evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.
FREDS—The Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of
states and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State
Implementation Plans (SIP). SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will
take to improve the air quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality
standards
Data Sources:
AQS: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS).
Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce
FREDS: Data are provided by EPA's Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Design values are calculated for every county
with adequate monitoring data (for more information on and a definition for design
values, see www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/memoranda/cdv.pdf). Air quality levels are
evaluated relative to the baseline level and the design value. The change in air quality
concentrations is then multiplied by the number of people living in the county. This
analysis assumes that the populations of the areas are held constant at 2000 Census
levels. Data comparisons over several years allow assessment of the air program's
success.
QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has
several major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and
equivalent methods program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP),
system audits, and network reviews (Available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required
to meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each site
must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions according
to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment must meet
EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record
-------
keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and
reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the
overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further
information available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States EPA's
Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department
of Commerce.
FREDS: No formal QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted.
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department
of Commerce.
FREDS: None
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
Populations: Not known
FREDS: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is
still too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to
meteorological conditions, for example).
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible
via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's data standards
(e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies
submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
CDX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data coming to or
leaving the Agency will pass.
Population: None
FREDS: None
-------
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process SIP revisions
weighted by complexity (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Databases: None
Data Sources: Data are provided by EPA's regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Baseline for processing SIP revisions is 420
days (The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 60 days for completeness + 360 days for
technical review)
Each Region will maintain a SIP tracking system. It will include the date of receipt,
interim dates and the final Regional Administrator's signature for each SIP submission.
At the end of the fiscal year, each Region will sum the total allowable SIP processing
days and the total actual SIP processing days for SIP revisions processed to final action
during the fiscal year. Each Region will then submit the totals to the National SIP
processing work group chair who will then divide the total actual processing days by the
total allowable processing days and calculate the percent difference from base year
processing time.
The SIP revisions are weighted by complexity because it takes some areas longer than
others to reach attainment.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional staff ensure the number of SIP revisions finalized is
equal to or less than the total number of SIP revisions received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA/QC procedures
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: None.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent reduction in the average number of days during the
ozone season that the ozone standard is exceeded in baseline non-
-------
attainment areas, weighted by population. (program assessment
measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality
Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI
value, (program assessment measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality
Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, per grant dollar allocated to the
States in support of the NAAQS program. (program assessment
efficiency measure)
Performance Databases:
AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to
evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.
AIRNow PMC -The AIRNow Data Management System (DMC) stores real-time
ambient air quality data used for the sole purpose of reporting real-time AQI and air
quality forecasting.
Data Sources:
AQS/DMC: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS). Program dollars are based on
the grant dollars allocated to the States in support of the NAAQS program, which will be
retrieved from the EPA Financial Data Warehouse.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:
Data are gathered from monitors using EPA-approved federal reference and/or equivalent
methods, all of which are published via the Federal Register. EPA assumes the
collecting agency has properly maintained each monitor and that the data sent to EPA
have passed at least an automated QA/QC check. The monitoring networks have been
providing data for decades and the data are considered highly reliable. In addition these
data form the basis of EPA's attainment decisions, trend analysis, and health impact
assessments.
QA/QC Procedures:
AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components:
the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods program,
EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network
reviews (Available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure
quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet
network design and site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment,
control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; 3)
all sampling methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent
-------
requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record keeping procedures must be
followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA.
Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection
activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information available on the
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United
States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
PMC: The QA/QC procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the same
as documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data
checks are built into the data flow process to further guard against erroneous values being
passed through the system. Data in the DMC are not considered final and are not used
for any regulatory purpose. Data in the AQS system are the official values used for
regulatory analyses.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted.
DMC: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external
users where applicable.
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
DMC: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is
still too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to
meteorological conditions for example).
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more user
friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily accessible
via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's data standards
(e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July 2003, agencies
submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
CDX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data coming to or
leaving the Agency will pass.
DMC: AIRNow Data Management Center was redesigned in 2004 to more efficiently
handle additional pollutants and provide for easier access to real-time data. In addition,
-------
automated QA/QC procedures were updated and increased flexibility for state/local
agencies to update information was included.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. For more
information on the monitoring network, as well as reference and equivalent methods, see
the Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic . For information on the AIRNow real-time program, see:
http ://www. airnow.gov/.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit application, (program assessment
measure)
• Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of
receiving a complete permit application, (program assessment measure)
Performance Databases: TOPS (Title V Operating Permit System).
Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local) via EPA Regional Offices
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by
comparing the number of new permits or significant permit modifications issued during
past 18 months to the total number of new permits or significant permit modifications
received during the same period. Data are collected every 6 months. There are no
underlying assumptions in the development of this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the number of
permits issued in 18 months is equal to or less than the total number of permits received.
2) ensuring the percentages seem reasonable compared to previous reporting periods, and
3) making sure clock does not restart when additional information is submitted after the
application is received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: TOPS has been revised and improved for 2006 to
ensure better consistency between states and to specifically track program assessment
measures.
-------
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a
complete permit application, (program assessment measure)
Performance Databases: RBLC (RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology
BACT (Best Available Control Technology) LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate
Clearinghouse)
Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local)
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by
determining the time period between the date of complete permit application and permit
issuance. The percentage represents the number of major NSR permits issued within one
year of complete application to the total number of permits issued within that same
period. There are no underlying assumptions in the development of this performance
measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the permit
issuance dates are after the complete permit application dates and appear reasonable, 2)
ensuring the permit processing times are similar for comparable permits in previous
reporting periods and 3) making sure the time period does not restart when additional
information is submitted after the application is received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from
mobile sources, (program assessment measure)
• Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
(program assessment measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
(program assessment measure)
-------
• Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
(program assessment measure)
• Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources (program
assessment measure)
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See:
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses
Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed
into the relevant models, which in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory
Database.
The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per
mile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
particulate matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various
conditions. Inputs to the model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information,
and control program characteristics.
The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxides from small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the
model include fleet composition, activity and temporal information.
Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only
if there is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)-types), temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are updated each year. Emission factors for all
mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road sources are changed only when the
Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be done and is able to provide
the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for mobile sources are
MOBILE6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.) The inputs to these and other models will be
reviewed and updated, sometimes on an annual basis for some parameters. Unless the
model inputs are updated and recalculations done for the performance measures to obtain
updated numbers, the actual numbers will be the same as the projected numbers.
Major EPA regulatory packages always include detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis
which estimates the costs industry is projected to accrue in meeting EPA regulations.
These cost estimates will form the basis of the numbers in the EPA performance
measures. Also, costs for the EPA mobile source program (including personnel costs)
will be included also. Estimates will be made for various years for tons/dollar for
pollutants (the total of HC, CO, NOx, and PM) removed.
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set limits
on how much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source. Mobile sources
include vehicles that operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles),
as well as nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are
cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad
locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers have responded to
many mobile source emission standards by redesigning vehicles and engines to reduce
pollution.
EPA uses models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years.
The estimates are used in a variety of different settings. The estimates are used for
rulemaking.
The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source
emissions is the "Trends" inventory process executed each year by the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division (EMAD). The Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, provides EMAD information and methods for making the
mobile source estimates. In addition, EMAD's contractors obtain necessary information
directly from other sources; for example, weather data and the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates by state. EMAD
creates and publishes the emission inventory estimate for the most recent historical year,
detailed down to the county level and with over 30 line items representing mobile
sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis projects, EMAD creates
estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating emissions
changes significantly, EMAD usually revises its older estimates of emissions in years
prior to the most recent year, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions
trend. EMAD publishes the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level
estimates are available electronically. Additional information about transportation and
air quality related to estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research
being conducted on technologies for reducing emissions is available at
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/research.htm
When major changes are made in the emission models or resulting inventories (and even
the cost estimates), the performance measures will be reviewed to determine if they
should be updated.
QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.
Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and
external parties, including the states, locals and industries.
Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come
from limitations in the modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and
models predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated
vehicle miles traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation
-------
data).http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For nonroad emissions, the estimates come from
a model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work, and an
estimate of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types of nonroad
equipment. Any limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in the
emission inventory estimates.
Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet:
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: To keep pace with new analysis needs, new modeling
approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling system termed
the Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System (MOVES). This new
system will estimate emissions for on road and off road sources, cover a broad range of
pollutants, and allow multiple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to national
inventory estimation. When fully implemented, MOVES will serve as the replacement
for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new system will not necessarily be a single piece of
software, but instead will encompass the necessary tools, algorithms, underlying data and
guidance necessary for use in all official analyses associated with regulatory
development, compliance with statutory requirements, and national/regional inventory
projections. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/ngm. htm
References: For additional information about mobile source programs see:
http ://www. epa.gov/otaq/.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline (program assessment measure)
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer
risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline (program assessment measure)
Performance Databases:
• National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
• EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization
Data Source:
To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the public, a
toxicity-weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed. This
measure utilizes data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPA's Health
Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which is a compendium of cancer and
noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This compendium includes
tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188 hazardous air
pollutants. These health risk data were obtained from various data sources including
EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, California
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting
cancer and the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other than cancer.
The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried
as point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as
non-point sources, and mobile sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the
National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993)
includes emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900
stationary sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected during the
development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state and
local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted
emission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI contains county level emissions
data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain facility specific data.
The 2002 NEI and a slightly modified/updated 2005 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and
mobile source estimates. These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific
HAP emissions and their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and
longitude) and facility characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air
pollution control agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and
quality. EPA evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while
developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.
For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to
the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information
and references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following
web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#1999^
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed every three years,
EPA utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years" and to
project the inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling
System for Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting
stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting
from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the
inventory by "weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk
criteria. This would be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by
pollutant values would be obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline
year (1990/93). Conversion of actual tons for each pollutant for the current year and the
baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons would be accomplished by multiplying the
appropriate values from the health criteria database such as the unit risk estimate (URE)
or lifetime cancer risk (defined at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html)
-------
to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted values act as a surrogate for risk and
allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against a 1990/1993 baseline of
toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on
EMS-HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#aspen
and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and
reduction information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other
organizations, to improve the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities
include: (1) the use of an automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data
integrity, code values, and range checks; (2) use of geographical information system
(GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and (3) automated content analysis by pollutant,
source category and facility to identify potential problems with emission estimates such
as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage of a source category, etc. The
content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical analyses. The
comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and pollutants to
review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by
providing the minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile
values based on current data. The EPA has incorporated an automated AAQA content
tool into its data submission process. Information on emission inventory reporting
(including a QA check) can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and
identifies the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA
contacts data providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external
review and includes a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission
of revisions, state-by-state modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files
to assist in the review of the data. One of the summary files includes a comparison of
point source data submitted by different organizations. During the external review of the
data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and industry provide external QA of the inventory.
The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos for
individual reviewers documenting incorporation of revisions and explanations if revisions
were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the database with the source of
original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes
in the initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs
and its final version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer
to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory
-------
Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC - An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999
National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF)
fields. These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and
other Federal agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters
consistently defined and formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides
public access to more meaningful data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are
the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification, Facility Identification,
Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The 1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all
new data standards except the Facility Identification Standard because OEI has not
completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for HAPs facilities.
For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information
Quality Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site
for a paper presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego. "The
Challenge of Meeting New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in
the Development of the 2002 NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/dm/pope.pdf. The 2002 NEI for HAPs will
undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.
The tables used in the EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are compiled assessments from various
sources for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean
Air Act of 1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at different
times for purposes that were similar but not identical, results are not totally consistent.
To resolve these discrepancies and ensure the validity of the data, EPA applied a
consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA risk assessment guidelines and various
levels of scientific peer review. These risk assessment guidelines can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/risk/guidance.htm.
Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the
public review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for
HAPs, the EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources
(MACT/residual risk data, TRI, and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility.
For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods were available for external review - October
2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March 2003. The final 1999 NEI was
completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003. Beginning in 2005, the
NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.
The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the
country in a process called "scientific peer review". This ensures that EPA uses the best
available scientific methods and information. In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment. The
-------
review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose, methods, and presentation;
the committee considers this an important step toward a better understanding of air
toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet:
www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer. html.
The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support
hazard identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html). Because the health criteria data were
obtained from various sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance
measure, for example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment
guidelines and 2) various levels of scientific peer review. The prioritization process is
aimed at incorporating the best available scientific data.
Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have
improved over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious
data limitations still exist. The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from other
primary references. Because of the different data sources, not all information in the NTI
and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical methods. Also, for the same
reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and accuracy than others.
Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for
input to dispersion models. For further discussion of the data limitations and the error
estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality
Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#haps99 .
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on
"EPA's Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs
Improvement" (report can be found at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-
00012.pdf). The report stated that although the methods used have improved
substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other limitations underlying the NTI continue
to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a result of this evaluation and the
OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action plan and is looking at
ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-annually with
OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action plan.
While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent
limitations and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not
practical to expose humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health
implications over long periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived
from response models and laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter
used to convert from exposure to cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is
based on default science policy processes used routinely in EPA assessments. First, some
air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but lack data in humans. These have
-------
been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air toxics in this assessment were
assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the probability of cancer (i.e.
effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable, exposures by a
straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a maximum
likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For other
air toxics compounds, however, the URE used was an "upper bound" estimate, meaning
that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound
estimates, it is assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is
likely, therefore, that this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in
the environment. The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered
"upper bound" in the science policy sense.
All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety. All of the Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer are conservative, meaning
that they represent exposures which probably do not result in any health effects, with a
margin of safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty and variability.
Like the URE used in cancer weighting the values are, therefore, considered "upper
bound" in the science policy sense. Further details on limitations and uncertainties
associated with the agencies health data can be found at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9. html#L10
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a
significant improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail
(e.g., stack heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion
model input. Future inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve
significantly because of increased interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies,
environmental interests, and industry, and the greater potential for modeling and trend
analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, all primary data submitters
and reviewers were required to submit their data and revisions to EPA in a standardized
format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). For more information on
CDX, please go the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html
Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize
ambient monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare
these values with health benchmarks to predict risks.
References:
The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/Emislnventory/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
-------
Audience:
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files
NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:
CHIEF:
Audience:
http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff
www. epa. gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA
compiled the 1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will
use to augment data
99 NTI Q's and A's provides answers to frequently asked
questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to
submit data using CDX
Training materials on development of HAP emission
inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
State/1 ocal/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/other/emshapv3ug.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
Contents: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience: public
Information on EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization:
Health Criteria Data: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html
Contents: Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic)
inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term
(acute) inhalation exposure
Audience: public
-------
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) with radon reducing features
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders and an internal database of fan sales.
Data Sources: The data for new homes is from a survey, which is an annual sample of
home builders in the United States, most of whom are members of the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB members construct 80% of the homes
built in the United States each year. Using a survey methodology reviewed by EPA,
NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of these homes that are built with
radon-reducing features. The percentage built with radon-reducing features from the
sample is then used to estimate what percent of all homes built nationwide include these
features, and of a subset built in high radon potential areas (Zone 1 on EPA's Radon
Zone Map) which are radon resistant.
The data source for existing homes is the radon fan manufacturers who report fan sales to
the Agency. EPA makes a number of assumptions about how the fans are used,
e.g.,assumes one fan per radon mitigated home, and a fan life of (10 years), and then
calculates the assumed estimated number of homes that have been mitigated that year,
and the cumulative total adjusted for fan life.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA collects data annually on the number of
new homes built with radon-resistant reducing features based on annual surveys of
homebuilding practices conducted by the NAHB Research Center. EPA collects data
annually on the number of existing homes mitigated for elevated radon levels based on
radon mitigation fan sales data obtained through voluntary reporting by the fan
manufacturers. Radon mitigation fans have an estimated average life often years. When
estimating the number of new radon mitigations annually in existing homes, the data
from fan manufacturers is adjusted based on an assumption that previously-installed
radon mitigation systems will have their fans replaced once every ten years. The data are
suitable for year-to-year comparisons.
This annual measure is a combination of data that includes additional number of homes
built with radon resistant new construction (RRNC), reported by industry on an annual
basis, as well as additional radon mitigations which are estimated from annual radon fan
sales.
QA/QC Procedures: Because the data are obtained from an external organization, their,
QA/QC procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center,
-------
QA/QC procedures have been established, which include QA/QC by the vendor that is
utilized for key entry of data. Because fan sales data, are obtained from an external
organization, EPA relies on the business practices of radon fan manufacturers for
reporting the data.
Data Quality Review: NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is manually
reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete. The review includes data
quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and
answered the questions appropriately. NAHB Research Center also applies checks for
open-ended questions to verify the appropriateness of the answers. Also, a quality review
of each year's draft report is conducted by the EPA project officer. Fan sales data are
obtained from an external organizations and EPA reviews the data to ascertain their
derivation and reliability, and resolves any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
Data Limitations: The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. To
augment the survey sample size, the NAHB Research Center sends the survey to home
builders identified from mailing lists of builder trade publications, such as Professional
Builder magazine. There is some uncertainty as to whether the survey adequately
characterizes the practices of builders who are not members of NAHB. The effects on
the findings are not known.
The survey typically has an overall response rate of 5 percent, while relatively low, is the
response rate for the entire survey. The radon-reducing features, new construction
questions are only a very small portion of the overall survey. Builders responding to the
survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon activities. Thus, a low
response rate does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive bias under the
speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely to
respond to the survey.
Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate the number of
radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the number
of homes mitigated nationally. There are other non-fan methods not captured by the fan
sales data to mitigate radon including: (1) passive mitigation techniques of sealing holes
and cracks in floors and foundation walls; (2) installing sealed covers over sump pits; (3)
installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains; and (4) installing static venting and
ground covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of
these methods, there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes
has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report
to EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only three 3 radon
vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated the
majority (about 70%) of the market. Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-
radon applications. However, vent fans typically used for non-radon applications are
perhaps being used as substitutes for radon vent fans in some instances; estimated to be
less than 1% of the total market. Ascertaining the actual number of radon vent fans used
-------
for other applications, and the number of non-radon fans being substituted in radon
applications, would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the benefit of having
such data.
Error Estimate: The statistical estimates of the NAHB survey are typically reported
with a 95 percent confidence interval.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports
of radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ for more
information about NAHB. The most recent report, "Builder Practices Report: Radon
Resistant Construction Practices in New US Homes 2007." in New Construction
2003,"Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB Research Center,
Inc., September 2008. Similar report titles exist for prior years.
See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html for National performance/progress
reporting (National Radon Results: 1985-to 2003) on radon, measurement, mitigation and
radon-resistant new construction.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Expressed as a percentage, the cumulative number of existing homes
with an operating mitigation system (HOMS)) compared to the
estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L* action level
• Total number of all new single family homes (SFH) built in high
radon potential areas (zone 1) compared to new homes in zone 1
built with mitigation-ready systems (radon-reducing features)
Performance Database: Data are stored in an internal spreadsheet
Data Source: EPA compares the number of existing homes that have been mitigated to
all homes anywhere in the country requiring mitigation because they exceed the EPA
action level of 4pCi/L.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
EPA annually calculates the estimated number of existing homes mitigated for an
elevated radon level based on radon mitigation vent fan sales data obtained through
voluntary reporting by the fan manufacturers. Radon mitigation fans have an estimated
life often years. When estimating the number of new radon mitigations annually, the
data from fan manufacturers is adjusted based on an assumption that previously-installed
radon mitigation systems will require a fan replacement every ten years. Historically,
about 60% of the new homes built with radon-reducing features in the U.S. are built in
Zone 1 areas, the highest risk areas (classified as Zone 1 by EPA).
-------
The calculation of the number of homes across the country at or above EPA's 4pCi/L
action level is based on methodology in the 1992 technical support document for radon
(internal document available upon request) and current census data.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA relies on the radon fan manufacturers annual reporting on
sales data for radon venting (vent) fans that are used for mitigation.
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization. EPA reviews
the data to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant
manufacturer.
Data Limitations: Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may
underestimate the number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available
data to determine the number of homes mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate
radon including: passive mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and
foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves
in untrapped drains, and installing static venting and ground covers in areas like crawl
spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods, there is again the
possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report
to EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon
vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70%
of the market. Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications.
However, vent fans typically used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed
as substitutes for radon vent fans in some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the
total market. Ascertaining the actual number of radon vent fans used for other
applications, and the number of non-radon fans being substituted in radon applications,
would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the benefit of having such data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 12/15/2009
for National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on
radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction. Data through 2004
are available from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Additional health care professionals trained annually by EPA and its
partners on the environmental management of asthma triggers (program
assessment measure)
-------
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status
reports used to document the outcomes of individual projects as well as EPA staff reports
of healthcare professionals directly educated by EPA.
Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving
fundng from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. For those
healthcare professionals directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires
(programmatic terms and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide
reports identifying how many health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma
triggers.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers.
Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality.
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Indoors Environments Division has developed a
centralized tracking system, known as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters
and regional actions, as well as from grantees.
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: In partnership with the Advertising Council, EPA conducts a
national public awareness campaign designed to raise awareness and promote action on
asthma trigger management. Data on this campaign, including target audience
impressions, demographics, campaign recall, attitudes and behaviors are collected by the
Ad Council through continuous tracking and point in time surveys.
Data Source: An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides media
tracking of outcomes of all their public service campaigns and this is publicly available
information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Methods are those of the Advertising Council,
and not controlled by EPA.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled
by EPA.
Data Quality Review: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled
by EPA.
Data Limitations: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by
EPA.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not
controlled by EPA.
References: Advertising Council Reporting. EPA Assistance Agreement number X-
82820301.
For additional information see the Ad Council web site http://www.adcouncil.org/
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality
programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of
schools which establish IAQ Tools for Schools (TfS) programs each year from reports
from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume
of guidances distributed and number of people trained by EPA and its partners. EPA also
collects information on program benefits such as reduced school nurse visits, improved
workplace satisfaction among staff, reduced absenteeism, and cost savings experienced
by schools.
Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving
funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. For those
organizations directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the
number of schools which establish IAQ Tools for Schools programs each year from
reports from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the
volume of guidance distributed, and number of people trained by EPA and its partners.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately
and completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are
conducted by EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance
database to ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.
-------
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement
Partner status reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.
Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Indoor Environments Division has developed a
centralized tracking system, known as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters
and regional actions, as well as from partners.
References: See the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (EPA 402-K-07-008)
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Remaining US consumption of Class II ODS, measured in tons of ozone
depleting potential (ODP) (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained
by the Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). ATS is used to compile and analyze
quarterly information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and
allowance trades of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class II
HCFCs is tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phase-out
regulations. Data are provided by U.S. companies producing, importing, and exporting
ODS. Corporate data are typically submitted as quarterly reports. Specific requirements
as outlined in the Clean Air Act are available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/index.html. Monthly information on domestic
production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is maintained
in the ATS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies
for each individual ODS to analyze U.S. total consumption and production.
QA/QC Procedures: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40
CFR Part 82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.13. These sections of the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule specify the required data and accompanying
documentation that companies must submit or maintain on-site to demonstrate their
compliance with the regulation.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA
Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002). In addition, the data are subject to an
annual quality assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff
separate from those on the team normally responsible for data collection and
-------
maintenance. The ATS is programmed to ensure consistency of the data elements
reported by companies. The tracking system flags inconsistent data for review and
resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is then cross-checked with
compliance data submitted by reporting companies. SPD maintains a user's manual for
the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry and data analysis.
Regional inspectors perform inspections and audits on-site at the producers', importers',
and exporters' facilities. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data submitted to
EPA through examination of company records.
Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review
of U.S. participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data
submissions from the U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the
Ozone Layer. No deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.
Data Limitations: None, since companies are required by the Clean Air Act to report
data. EPA's regulations specify a quarterly reporting system.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a
system to allow direct electronic reporting.
References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on
ODSs. See http://www.epa.gov.ozone/intpol/index.html for additional information about
the Montreal Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the
Multilateral Fund. Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs,
July 2002
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of most populous U.S. cities with a RadNet ambient radiation
air monitoring system, which will provide data to assist in protective
action determinations, (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. Data from the
near real time gamma component of the ambient air radiation monitoring system,
RadNet, will be stored in the EPA RadNet database at the National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, AL.
Data Source: Data on the number and location of monitors will be stored in the NAREL
RadNet program expansion database; U.S. Census Bureau population data will be used to
calculate 100 most populous cities; environmental data from the RadNet system will be
stored in the NAREL RadNet database.
-------
Methods and Assumptions: These monitors will provide data on ambient environmental
levels of radiation on an ongoing basis and in the event of a radioactive contamination
event.
Suitability: This measure was selected to show the implementation of the fixed
monitoring network and the benefit to population. Over time, once the system is fully
implemented, this measure will become obsolete.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow
Agency guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan
once it is complete (scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air
filters and other media, as well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance
with the NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating
Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory Quality Management Plan Revision 1, dated March 15, 2001
and reaffirmed August 23, 2006).
Data Quality Review: Science Advisory Review Board reviewed and analyzed the
RadNet system and presented their suggestions for the expansion and upgrade of the
system.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/C263E39FF10FEAl 1852573090068BD72/$F
ile/sab-07-010.pdf
Data Limitations: N/A.
Error Estimate: It is not anticipated that significant error will occur in tracking the
number of monitors placed in cities.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None planned at this time.
References: For more information about the system, see: www.epa.gov/narel/radnet \
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support
federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations
(measured as percentage of radiation response team members and assets
that meet scenario-based response criteria), (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: Annual measurement of readiness based on an evaluation of the
emergency response assets.
-------
Methods and Assumptions: EPA developed standardized criteria based on the
functional requirements identified in the National Response Plan's Nuclear/Radiological
Incident Annex and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). A baseline analysis for the Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT)
was performed in 2005, for EAP Headquarters and is based on the effectiveness of the
RERT during incidents and national exercises.
Suitability: This measure and its criteria were developed to complement Department of
Homeland Security criteria as well as those of the EPA Core Emergency Response and
Removal (Core ER) program evaluation measures.
QA/QC Procedures: An evaluation panel consisting of three representatives from the
Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), one from each Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air (ORIA) Laboratory and one from ORIA Headquarters, and ORIA
management representatives (including at least one representative from outside the ORIA
Radiological Emergency Response Program) annually perform a critical evaluation of
ORIA's Radiological Emergency Response Program's capabilities versus the
standardized criteria, resulting in an overall annual percentage score, as well as
component percentage scores. Representatives will not be involved in the evaluation of
their own location. Members are chosen based on volunteerism and by lottery on an
annual basis. The Panel is chaired by the non-RERT management representative
Data Quality Review: Evaluation information is provided to the ORIA Office Director
annually for use in evaluating progress. Data quality is certified by the Laboratory
Directors at the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory and the
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory as well as by the Division Director
of the Radiation Protection Division.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: None known
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan:
Long-Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation program
Program Assessment (Draft: 7/25/2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of national environmental radiological laboratory
capacity (measured as percentage of laboratories adhering to EPA
quality criteria for emergency response and recovery decisions).
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database.
-------
Data Source: EPA will conduct laboratory assessments between years 2006 to 2011 to
determine commercial, state and federal laboratory capability, capacity, and
qualifications. This is a phased-in approach and initial work has already begun. In 2007,
EPA has conducted an initial capacity and capability survey of select commercial
radiation laboratories.
Methods and Assumptions: The percentage laboratory capacity that is needed is based
on the Homeland Security Council Radiological Attack, Radiological Dispersal Device
Scenario. Similarly, radiological scenario analytical needs will be based on the Homeland
Security Council Radiological Dispersion Device (ROD) Scenario. Laboratory capacity
determines, for example, equipment needs, whereas, analytical needs measurement
determines expert modeling capability, etc. Both are important factors in determining
level of readiness. Increased laboratory capacity for those laboratories assisted through
EPA guidance and training will be calculated.
Suitability: This measure is critical to identifying level of readiness relative to
radiological laboratory capacity in the event of an incident of national significance.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow
Agency guidelines and be consistent with EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Quality Management Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
Data Quality Review: Information gained from the laboratory assessments with respect
to capacity and ability to meet method validation protocols will be used to determine
laboratory capacity, which adheres to EPA quality criteria.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan:
Long-Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation program
Program Assessment (Draft: 7/25/2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Average time before availability of quality assured ambient radiation air
monitoring data during an emergency, (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Data from the near real-time gamma component RadNet will be
stored in an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama.
-------
Data Source: The baseline for this measure is the current calculated response time which
is based on shipment time and laboratory analysis time. As real-time monitors are put
into service, the efficiency of the system will increase. Near real-time units will have
reliable data in hours compared to days for conventional monitors, which are dependent
on shipment and analysis time of samples.
Methods and Assumptions: The time between data collection at the monitoring sites
and availability of data for release by EPA will be determined annually for the system as
a whole, including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors. The
efficiency data will be compiled from existing and ongoing operational records of
RadNet.
The monitoring system efficiency is based on two assumptions: (1) 43 conventional (non-
real-time) monitoring stations exist in the system before the addition of any real-time
monitors, and (2) a baseline of two and one-half days (60 hours) are required for data to
become available (during emergency conditions) from the 43 non-real-time monitors.
The initial interval of 2.5 days assumes the network is in alert status when time counting
begins. Six (6) hours is the time required for data to become available from the near real-
time monitors.
Suitability: This measure provides key data regarding availability of data and
operational readiness of the nationwide RadNet ambient radiation monitoring network.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow
Agency guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan
once it is complete (scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air
filters and other media, as well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance
with the NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating
Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory Quality Management Plan Revision 3 dated June 1, 2009).
Data Quality Review: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring
systems for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument
malfunction. Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by
trained personnel. Copies of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be
maintained to assure the quality of the data.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will use data from the enhanced RadNet
ambient air radiation monitoring system.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
• Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE
waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive
waste at WIPP (measured as percentage reduction from a 2004 baseline)
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: EPA has established a range of baseline data from existing records that
indicate the date(s) of the EPA site inspection and the EPA approval date for waste
streams and waste characterization equipment. EPA will measure the time between the
DOE request for approval/notification of change (or the date of the inspection, if
applicable) to the date of EPA approval, disapproval or concurrence of the change.
Methods and Assumptions: Under the new requirements of 40 CFR Part 194.8, EPA
will perform a baseline inspection of each DOE waste generator site. If all requirements
are met, EPA will approve the site's waste characterization program and assign tiers,
based on abilities demonstrated during the baseline inspection. DOE will inform EPA of
changes in the waste characterization program that can affect the quality of the data
required by EPA to ensure the disposal regulations are met. The tiering protocol, which
applies to waste streams, equipment, and procedures, will require DOE to either notify
EPA of changes to the waste characterization program prior to implementation of the
change (Tier 1) or to notify EPA of the changes upon implementation (Tier 2). For Tier 1
changes, EPA may request additional information or conduct an inspection prior to
issuing an approval.
EPA assumes that adequate resources commensurate with the workload (which varies by
up to 3 fold on an annual basis) are available and that sufficiently qualified EPA
personnel and contractor consultants are available.
Suitability: This measure provides key information about the time required for EPA to
approve DOE's request to dispose of transuranic waste at the WIPP site.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow
Agency guidelines and be consistent with EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Quality Management Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan
Quarterly Supplement http://www.wipp.energy.gov/shipments.htm (last accessed
-------
7/20/2009) contains information on the volumes of waste that are received at the DOE
WIPP.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per
million dollars invested, (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. The percent of
the U.S. population covered is dependent on the number of monitors deployed and
includes everyone in the continental U.S. within 25 miles of an ambient radiation
monitor. Dollars invested includes the full budget of the Radiation Protection Program.
Data Source: The performance measurement data—percentage of U.S. population
covered by the program—will be calculated annually from operational records
maintained at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. These records
are an inherent part of program oversight and will not require special data collection
efforts. U.S. population numbers are based on the Census 2000 from the U.S. Census
Bureau. Program dollars are based on the full budget of the Radiation Protection
Program, which will be retrieved from the EPA Financial Data Warehouse. The costs and
data points produced will be determined annually for the system as a whole, including
existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors.
Methods and Assumptions: This measure reflects the population covered (i.e., within
25 miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation
monitoring and assessment per program dollar. As such, it is a very conservative estimate
of "coverage." In the event of a radiological emergency, the enhanced radiological
monitoring system would support a number of response measures and activities that
cover and apply to the population as a whole. This entails complete mobilization of
EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Program and full deployment of all monitoring
capability, including up to 40 portable RadNet monitors. The efficiency measure is
defined as the total costs (including FTE) to run both the legacy and near real-time
systems, which will provide scientists, decision makers, and the public information on
ambient radiation levels in airborne particulates under normal conditions or during
radiological incidents. As real-time monitors are put into service, the efficiency of the
system will increase dramatically. Near real-time units produce reliable data each hour as
opposed to twice weekly for conventional (legacy) monitors, which are dependent on
shipment and analysis time of samples.
Suitability: This measure provides key information about population covered (i.e.,
within 25 miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation
monitoring and assessment per program dollar.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Review: N/A
-------
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
-------
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
FY2011 Performance Measures:
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the buildings sector (program assessment measure)
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the industry sector (program assessment measure)
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the transportation sector (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System. The
tracking system's primary purpose is to maintain a record of the annual greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals and accomplishments for the voluntary climate program using
information from partners and other sources. It also measures the electricity savings and
contribution towards the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal.
Data Source: EPA develops carbon and non-CC>2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs.
Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy
Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S.
electric power sector. These data are used for both historical and projected greenhouse
gas emissions and electricity generation, independent of partners' information to compute
emissions reductions from the baseline and progress toward annual goals. The projections
use a "Reference Case" for assumptions about growth, the economy, and regulatory
conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CC^) emissions, including nitrous
oxide and other high global warming potential gases, are maintained by EPA. The non-
CO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also independently from partners'
information.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility- specific
improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data
on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power
levels and usage patterns
Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The
report includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory
(sources, industries, emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second chapter
addresses projected greenhouse gases in the future (model assumptions, growth, sources,
gases, sectors, etc.)
U.S. Department of State. 2002. "U.S. Climate Action Report—2002. Third National
Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change."
-------
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure.
EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual
emissions data received.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs'
focus is on energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected reduction
in electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are calculated
as the product of the kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor (e.g., metric
tons carbon equivalent (MMTCE) prevented per kWh). Other programs focus on directly
lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach,
and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas emission reductions are
estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a tracking system for emissions
reductions.
The Integrated Planning Model, used to develop baseline data for carbon emissions, is an
important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power
sector. The IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from
EPA's program office.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. Peer-
reviewed carbon-conversion factors are used to ensure consistency with generally
accepted measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed
methodologies are used to calculate GHG reductions from these programs.
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance measure.
EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based on the actual
emissions data received.
Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its
climate programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency
evaluation, led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the
status of U.S. climate change programs. The review included participants from EPA and
the Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The
results were published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-2002 as part of the United
States' submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The
previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-1997. A 1997 audit
by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate programs examined
"used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact their activities
had on reducing risks to health and the environment..."
Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion
factors and methods to convert material-specific reductions to GHG emissions
-------
reductions). Also, the voluntary nature of the programs may affect reporting. Further
research will be necessary in order to fully understand the links between GHG
concentrations and specific environmental impacts, such as impacts on health,
ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth.
Error Estimate: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions. Although EPA devotes
considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate
emissions reductions from its voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could
be introduced through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses,
and econometric analyses. The only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG
emissions are voluntary.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to
update inventories and methodologies as new information becomes available.
References: The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is available at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. The accomplishments of
many of EPA's voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection
Partnerships Division Annual Report. The most recent version is Protecting the
Environment Together: ENERGY STAR and other Voluntary Programs, Climate
Protection Partnerships Division 2007 Annual Report.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/2007%20CPPD%204pg.pdf
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 6
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of
reducing uncertainty in the science that supports the standard-setting and
air quality management decisions (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of: 1) overall progress
toward completing research goals, and 2) completion of distinct planned program
outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Clean Air Research Program's long-term goals, the program annually
develops a list of key research milestones and outputs in support of the Multi-Year Plan
that are scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by
the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program then tracks
quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined
schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original
list that are successfully completed on-time.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones
be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones
and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and
independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject
to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007)
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (program assessment
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned
and actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent
of planned program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the
difference between planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically,
determining the difference between what the program actually spent and what it intended
to spent), and 3) dividing the difference between planned and actual performance by the
difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and
estimated costs when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects
only the key program outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a
program. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated,
though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Clean Air program publications rated as highly cited papers
(program assessment measure).
• Percentage of Clean Air program publications in "high impact" journals
(program assessment measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are
conducted to obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are
completed using Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI provides access to a unique and comprehensive
compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data derived
from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI
employs both total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals
gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a
recognized authority for evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that
provide a systematic, objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their
impact and influence in the global research community. The two key measures used in
this analysis to assess the journals in which a program's papers are published are the
Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency
with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The
Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially when compared
to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other
key agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/index.html
-------
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of the population served by community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including
effective treatment and source water protection (program assessment measure)
• 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 (program assessment measure)
• Percent of person months during which community water systems provide
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards (program
assessment measure)
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based
standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water
protection (program assessment measure)
• The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary
survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance)
(program assessment measure)
• People receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards
per million dollars spent to manage the drinking water program
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version
(SDWIS or SDWIS/FED). SDWIS contains basic water system information, population
served, and detailed records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's
implementing health-based drinking water regulations. The performance measures are
based on the percent of the population served by community water systems, or the percent
of community water systems, that did not report any violations designated as "health
based." Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a
treatment technique are health-based violations.
Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement
authority) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are
either: States, EPA for non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian
tribe, the only tribe with primacy. Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated
water systems, determine compliance, and report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily
inventory and summary violations).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Under the drinking water regulations, water
systems must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants. State certified
laboratories report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine exceedances of
maximum contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment techniques and report
these violations to EPA. These results are subject to periodic performance audits and
-------
compared to results that states report to SDWIS. Primacy agencies' information systems
and compliance determinations are audited on an average schedule of once every 3 years,
according to a protocol. To measure program performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS
data into national statistics on overall compliance with health-based drinking water
standards using the measures identified above.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control
steps to provide high quality data for program use, including:
(1) SDWIS/FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
(2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard
operating procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data,
including timely corrective action(s).
(3) Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error
correction.
(4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and
maintained on EPA's web site. System, user, and reporting requirements
documents can be found on the EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/.
System and user documents are accessed via the database link
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule reporting
requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy
documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
(5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooter's
guide, a system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the results
of each data submission, and an error code database for states to use when they
have questions on how to enter or correct data.
(6) User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS/FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan1
(DRAP). The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be
employed and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality
standards. This plan has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control.
Data Quality Review: Data Quality Review: Routine data quality assurance and quality
control analysis of SDWIS by the Agency revealed a degree of non-reporting of
violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result, the Agency is now tracking and
quantifying the quality of data reported to SDWIS/FED as part of the Agency's National
Water Program Guidance. The Agency will continue to follow and update the Data
Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. EPA will continue to review the results of on-
site data verification (and eDV) and initiate a discussion with individual states concerning
any potential discrepancies with the data reported to SDWIS/FED. The on-site DV will
be conducted as described in the Data Verification Protocol. Even as improvements are
made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance with Safe
12006Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07-010 March 2008
-------
Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the development of drinking
water regulations, trend analyses, and public information.
Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses
indicate that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting by the states of
monitoring and health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics. The most
significant under-reporting occurs in monitoring violations. Even though those are not
covered in the health based violation category, which is covered by the performance
measure, failures to monitor could mask treatment technique and MCL violations. Such
under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability to: 1) accurately portray the percent of
people affected by health-based violations, 2) target enforcement oversight, 3) target
program assistance to primacy agencies, and 4) provide information to the public on the
safety of their drinking water facilities. As described in the Data Quality Review section
above, EPA has recently changed the data verification protocol to enhance the results of
data audits and better understand the limitations of the data, and target assistance.
Error Estimate: EPA analyzes data, derived from a recently improved data audit protocol,
with a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results. This process is
better aligned with requirements of the Data Quality Act. The long-term value of the
improved audit process is that each year's results will be statistically representative and
provide information closer in time to the needed performance reporting.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Several approaches are underway.
First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP and ISP, which have
already improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in
SDWIS/FED through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and
reporting requirements, 2) state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data
audits conducted each year, and 4) assistance to regions and states in the identification
and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or conflicting data.
Second, more states (as of August 2008, 53 States, Tribes, and territories are using
SDWIS/STATE) will use SDWIS/STATE,2 a software information system jointly
designed by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water
program.
Third, in 2006 EPA modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize
data entry options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and
(4) ease the flow of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment
incorporating modern technologies, all of which will improve the accuracy of the data.
Data are stored in a data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval,
SDWIS/STATE is an optional data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support
implementation of their drinking water programs.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases -
SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
-------
and data integration from other data sources. It has improved the program's ability to
more efficiently use information to support decision-making and effectively manage the
program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing a data system to manage
information for the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC). This database will
provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the nation's drinking water
supplies, a key component of the goal. The UIC database began receiving data in 2007.
References:
Plans
• SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Proj ect Plan. The SDWIS/FED
equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
• Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Reports
• 2006 Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07-
010 March 2008
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
D PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
D Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error
Code Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.)
Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm
D Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html
Web site addresses
D OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains
access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and
reports.
D Sites of particular interest are:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to
better analyze the data, and
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm contains reporting guidance,
system and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
• Percent of data for violations of health-based standards at public water systems
that are accurate and complete.
Performance Database: The Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version
(SDWIS/FED) is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) principal database for
the national drinking water program. EPA routinely conducts program reviews, which
evaluate the management of state drinking water programs and provide the data on
discrepancies in compliance determinations. During the program reviews, EPA examines
state compliance decisions, data on system compliance and violations in the state files,
and the data required to be reported to SDWIS/FED. Violation data are evaluated by
comparing the following: 1) EPA's evaluation of the state's compliance decision on the
violations; 2) the assigned violations in the state files; and 3) the violations reported to
SDWIS/FED. EPA reviews data submitted by public water systems (PWSs), state files
and databases, and SDWIS/FED, and compiles the results on the discrepancies among the
data.
Data Source: After each program review, the program review staff information and
enter it into the Error Code Tracking Tool (ECTT). The ECTT includes violation
determinations and discrepancies, as well as the inventory information, including
PWSID, system type, source, and population served.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The program reviews involve the evaluation of
the states' compliance decisions and the agreement between the data in the state files and
SDWIS/Fed. EPA uses a statistically random sample of systems that is drawn from the
total number of systems in the state for the program reviews. The sample size for each
system type within a state is calculated based on the acceptable precision level for the
estimates within 5% margin of error with a confidence level of 90 or 95 percent. EPA
evaluates violation compliance results from the probability sample of systems for each
state. Then, EPA estimates proportions related to completeness and accuracy among state
files, the state database, and SDWIS/FED for violation data.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA is responsible for compiling and querying the data and, as
needed, for assuring data validity. Also, EPA provides the states with the compiled data
from ECTT to verify the validity of data and work with the states to correct any invalid
data.
Data Quality Reviews: States have several opportunities to respond to findings while
the program review personnel are on site and provide additional clarifying information if
available. States also review the program review draft report before the final report is
produced and their comments are incorporated into the report. EPA responds to every
state comment, to explain in detail whether or not the state's additional information
changed the finding.
Data Limitations: Because the overwhelming majority of systems are small systems,
the group of systems selected for data verification may not always include larger systems.
-------
Error Estimate: EPA analyzes data, derived from a recently improved data audit
protocol, with a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results. There are
different systems and types reflected in the data. Error estimates are based on a 95
percent confidence interval.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is currently testing and evaluating Electronic
Data Verification (eDV) tool which would collect and evaluate compliance sample
results of regulated contaminants and determine the completeness of the violations
electronically for all PWSs. The eDV can be used to supplement the Program Review
data in evaluating the completeness and accuracy of SDWIS/FED.
References:
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 2006 Drinking Water Data
Reliability Analysis and Action Plan. EPA 816-R-07-010 (Washington: US EPA, August
2008). Available on the Internet at
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of community water systems for which minimized risk to public
health through source water protection is achieved.
Performance Database: The source water assessment and protection programs are
authorized under Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsections of 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).3 EPA issued guidance to implement these programs in
1997, State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance4 In March
2005, EPA issued supplemental reporting guidance, "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance. " Starting in
FY 2005, and updated annually thereafter, states report to EPA on progress in
implementing source water protection (SWP) strategies, and whether such strategy
implementation is affecting public health protection. To assess progress in implementing
the SWP strategies, state reporting includes two elements: (1) whether strategy
implementation for a community water system has reached a substantial level, and (2) the
related population served by those water systems. To assess whether the program is
affecting public health protection, states report change in the number of Community
Water System source water areas with substantially implemented source water protection
strategies. The Agency will develop a national summary of data on the progress of
states' source water protection programs using these data elements.
3 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet
at
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at
-------
States report summary data for each of these elements in a spreadsheet format.
Beginning in FY 2005, states may, at their option, make available to EPA public water
system-level data for each of these elements to be maintained in a set of data tables in the
drinking water warehouse (for tabular data) and in event tables in the Office of Water's
Reach Address Database (RAD)5 (GIS data). These data will be compatible with the
inventory data States are currently reporting to the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS).6
Data Source: Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported to the EPA Regional Offices the
percentage of community water systems implementing source water protection programs.
As noted above, states can report to EPA's Regional Offices using a spreadsheet
approach. EPA has also developed a new source water data module to collect, store, and
use public water system-level data as noted above.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of
progress in implementing their source water assessment and protection programs will be
based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and
Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance. " States will only report state-
level summary information directly related to specific community water systems in a
state-level database. While state reporting will be based on definitions and procedures
found in the "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance, " and even with the state flexibilities built into the
definitions for substantial implementation strategies, EPA believes that the data will be
reliable for use in making management decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures are included in the 2005 "State and Federal
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting
Guidance. " Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the spreadsheet data
collection procedures given to each Region for their work with states. States will be
required to identify whether their reported summary-level data are based on a system-
level database. EPA Regional offices also will work with individual states to obtain a
description of their methods of collecting and verifying information.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA Regions will conduct data quality reviews of state data
using the QA/QC procedures included with the spreadsheet-based data system, and work
with states to resolve data issues. As a result, EPA expects the quality of data on the
results of the assessments and source water protection activities to improve over time.
Data Limitations: Because the reporting provides only state-level summary
information, there is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data against
system-level information contained in state databases. In addition, much of the data
reported by states is voluntary and based on working agreements with EPA because
5 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at
6 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
-------
SDWA only requires states to complete source water assessments. That is, the only
source water information that states are required to report to EPA under SDWA is
whether the assessments are completed. Although EPA's 2005 "State and Federal
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting
Guidance" set standard data definitions and procedures, it also provides for considerable
flexibility in states' definition for substantial implementation of strategies, data collection
protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their data. For example, some states may
require each public water system to report data, while others may institute a voluntary
process. Because much of the data reporting is voluntary and the individual state
protocols may vary, state data may be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for this performance
measure given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The source water reporting module has been
developed as a joint initiative between EPA, the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). It will
give EPA the ability to access the data directly from states through a data exchange
agreement using an electronic data transfer capability. A state may choose, at its option,
to provide EPA more detailed data in lieu of state-level summary reporting. The new
source water data module has been integrated into the drinking water data warehouse and
is compatible with Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data already
reported by states. Geospatial data (i.e., the intake and well point locations and the
source water area polygons) will be maintained in EPA's Office of Water's Reach Access
Database (RAD). The source water assessment and protection indicator data and other
attribute data will be maintained in data tables in the drinking water warehouse.
References:
Guidance Manuals
• U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA, August 1997).
Available on the Internet at
• Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August,
2003.
• "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures:
Final Reporting Guidance, " March 2005.
Web site addresses
• US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
• For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Source Water site.
-------
• US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed
Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS).
• Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF (program assessment measure)
• Number of additional projects initiating operations (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund National Information
Management System (DWNEVIS.)
Data Sources: Data are entered by state regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's
Regional staff; they are collected and reported once yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into DWNEVIS directly represent
the units of performance for the performance measure. These data are suitable for year-
to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices are responsible for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance
with expected trends. States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the
form of annual memoranda (e.g., "2005 DWNEVIS Data Collection")
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. State data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html in individual state reports.
Headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through
the appropriate EPA Regional office. Additionally, EPA's contractor tests the data for
logical consistency. An annual EPA headquarters' "DWNEVIS Analysis" provides
detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during:
1. Annual EPA Regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems with the
program's pace which might affect the performance measure.
2. Reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds.
3. Annual reviews by EPA's Regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.
State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions.
Any inconsistencies that are found in need of correction are incorporated into future
DWNEVIS reports. These adjustments are historically rare and very minor.
-------
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states
submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the DWNIMS database by
typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through
data testing performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying
interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been largely
reduced. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf. There is typically a lag of
approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the
DWNIMS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1999. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.
References:
State performance data as shown in NEVIS are available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf
2005 DWNIMS Data Collection - memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05
DWNIMS analysis
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells and other
high priority Class V wells closed or permitted.
• Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject industrial, municipal,
or hazardous waste (Class I) that have lost mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to
endanger underground sources of drinking water
• Percent of deep injection wells that are used to enhance oil/natural gas
recovery or for the injection of other (Class II) fluids associated with oil and
natural gas production that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned
to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger
underground sources of drinking water
• Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution mining (Class
III) that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance
within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground
sources of drinking water
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is
authorized under Part C Sections 1421, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1431 and 1445 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA). Regulations for the UIC program are in 40 CFR Parts 144
- 148. Basic program information is collected from states and EPA's regional offices
(regions) with direct implementation (DI) responsibilities through the 7520 Federal
Reporting forms 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. In July 2005, EPA issued a measures reporting
assistance memorandum, "Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on
-------
Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance
Performance Activity Measures." Starting in FY 2005, including annual updates
thereafter, states report to EPA the results of their UIC performance measures. In the
initial 2005 reporting, states or the regions, if they have direct implementation of the
program, report the following information: (1) The number of Class I, II, III, and V
violations and significant violations that have been identified and addressed; (2) the
number of Class I, II, III and V inspections; (3) The number of Class I, II and III salt
solution mining wells that maintained mechanical integrity; (4) the number of Class V
wells in Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs) with surveys completed; and (5) the
number of high priority wells in ground water based SWPAs that are closed or permitted.
This information was reported to help determine the impact that the UIC program is
having relative to public health protection. It also helps assess the progress being made
to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW).
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these reporting
elements in a spreadsheet format. In FY 2005, states and/or regions reported summary
measures information through a spreadsheet. In FY 2006, measures data was entered into
a web-based reporting form which mirrored the spreadsheet from the previous year. The
UIC program began collecting program information in a UIC national database in 2007;
this system electronically transfers information from state databases to EPA's national
database using EPA's Exchange Network. EPA is currently working with the regions and
several states to complete development of the system and to begin populating it. FY
2008 is a transition year to test efficacy of the new data system and the quality of the
submitted data. Planned implementation is 2008 through 2012.
Data Source: Until the UIC national database is deployed for use, states or DI programs
will report to EPA using the UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System.
This is a web-base data entry system. States and DI programs began transition to the UIC
national data system for reporting of UIC data in 2007. - See section "New/Improved
Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For these measures, the states' reporting of
progress is based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "Information to Assist Regions and States to
Report on Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance
Performance Activity Measures." States will only report state-level summary
information, much of which is contained in state databases. State reporting will be based
on definitions and procedures found in the guidance. EPA believes that the data will be
reliable for use in making management decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include validation of information in states'
7520 reporting forms. Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the web entry
system. EPA's regional offices also will work with individual states to verify
information. Additional checks are performed by EPA headquarters on randomly selected
states.
-------
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's regional offices will conduct data quality reviews of state
data using the QA/QC procedures and work with states to resolve data issues. EPA
headquarters will communicate any additional concerns that may occur. The national
data system includes software to reject erroneous data. As a result, EPA expects the
quality of data on the results of the assessments and source water protection activities to
improve over time.
Data Limitations: Current reporting only provides summary-level information. There is
no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate this summary data against well-level
information contained in state databases. Some of the information used for calculation of
the measures has not been collected historically reducing the availability of information,
which may cause the data to be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for these performance
measures given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The UIC national data base is being developed
though consultation with regions and states. It will give EPA the ability to access the
data directly from states through the Exchange Network using the Central Data Exchange
(CDX). The data system will not only include the data for the measures but all of the
data necessary for EPA to effectively manage the national program.
References:
Guidance, Regulations and Data Forms
• Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on Underground Injection
Control Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance Activity
Measures (Reporting Assistance Memo)—7/06/06
• Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148
• UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures Web Data Entry System
• 7520 Federal Reporting Forms (OGWDW Homepage-UIC Program)
Form 7520-1 Permit Review and Issuance/Wells in Area of Review
Form 7520-2A (Compliance Evaluation)
Form 7520- 2B (Compliance Evaluation/ Significant Noncompliance)
Form 7520-3(Inspections/Mechanical Integrity Testing)
Form 7520-4 (Quarterly Exceptions List)
Web site addresses
• Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6
August 1996). Available on the Internet at:
http ://www. epa. gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa. html
-------
• For more detailed information on Underground Injection topics, US EPA Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on the website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of women of child-bearing age having mercury levels in blood above
the level of concern identified by the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES).
Performance Database: There is no publicly accessible database that contains this
information. Rather, the information is reported by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) on public use data files every two years. The latest report is the
Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals., which
presents findings for the years 2003 and 2004, and was published in 2009.l
Data Source: CDC's National Center for Health Statistics conducts the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which chemicals or their metabolites
are measured in blood and urine samples from a random sample of participants.
NHANES is a series of surveys designed to collect data on the health and nutritional
status of the U.S. population. CDC reports the NHANES results in the National Report
on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. The Second National Report on
Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released in 2003 and presented
biomonitoring exposure data for 116 environmental chemicals for the civilian, non-
institutionalized U.S. population over the 2-year period 1999-2000. The Third National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals presents similar exposure data
for the U.S. population for 148 environmental chemicals over the period 2001-2002. The
Fourth Report, which includes the data from the Second and Third Reports, measures 212
chemicals over the period 2003-2004.
Methods and Assumptions: Biomonitoring measurements for the Report were from
samples from participants in NHANES. NHANES collects information about a wide
range of health-related behaviors, performs a physical examination and collects samples
for laboratory tests. Beginning in 1999, NHANES became a continuous survey,
sampling the U.S. population annually and releasing the data in two-year cycles. (Note,
however, that the Fourth Report was issued four years after the Third Report.) The
sampling plan follows a complex, stratified, multistage, probability-cluster design to
select a representative sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population in the
United States. Additional detailed information on the design and conduct of the
NHANES survey is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The CDC
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) provides guidelines for the analysis of
NHANES data at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelinesJune_04.pdf Other
details about the methodology including statistical methods are reported in the Fourth
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.
-------
Suitability: This indicator was selected because it provides an indication of levels of
exposure in the human population to organic mercury where the main source is the
consumption offish and shellfish contaminated with methylmercury. As consumers
follow fish consumption advice, changes in mercury in blood levels will decrease. This
measure is not suitable for annual comparison but the periodic reports from NHANES
provide a direct measure of mercury in blood levels in a representative sample of the US
population.
QA/QC Procedures: The CDC quality assurance and quality control procedures are not
specified in the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals. However, the Data Sources and Data Analysis chapter in the report does
delineate the assumptions inherent in the analysis.
Data Quality Review: The data comes from the NHANES study, which CDC has
designed to have a high quality.
Data Limitations: NHANES is designed to provide estimates for the civilian, non-
institutionalized U.S. population. The current design does not permit examination of
exposure levels by locality, state, or region; seasons of the year; proximity to sources of
exposure; or use of particular products. For example, it is not possible to extract a subset
of the data and examine levels of blood lead that represent levels in a particular state's
population.
Error Estimate: The Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals provides 95% confidence intervals for all statistics
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Fourth National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. July 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
December 2009.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other
recreational contact with, coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a five-
year average.
Performance Database: Data on waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDOs) are collected
by the states and are submitted to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under an
agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the organization that
sponsors the collection of the data. EPA/ORD collaborates with CDC in the analysis of
the data. The data are published every two years for the prior second and third years'
occurrence of outbreaks as a Surveillance Summary in the CDC's Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), e.g., data from 1997-1998 were published in 2000;
-------
data from 2005-2006 were published in 2008 \ Outbreaks of gastroenteritis, dermatitis,
and other diseases are listed according to date of occurrence, state in which the outbreak
occurred, etiological agent, the number of cases that resulted from the outbreak, class of
the outbreak data (index of data quality for the reporting of the outbreak), and the type of
source (e.g., lake, river, pool) involved.
Data Source: Since 1971, CDC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
maintained a collaborative surveillance system for collecting and periodically reporting
data that relate to occurrences and causes of WBDOs. The surveillance system includes
data about outbreaks associated with drinking water and recreational water. State,
territorial, and local public health departments are primarily responsible for detecting and
investigating WBDOs and for voluntarily reporting them to CDC.
Methods and Assumptions: State, territorial, and local public health agencies report
WBDOs to CDC on a standard form (CDC form 52.12). CDC annually requests reports
from state and territorial epidemiologists or from persons designated as WBDO
surveillance coordinators. As indicated above, the data are submitted to CDC by the
states under an agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
Original data forms and the primary database itself are not available for external review
because of concerns about the integrity and confidentiality of the data, which include
information such as the names of data reporters, specific identities of water bodies, and
identities of facilities and properties, both public and private, at which the outbreaks
occurred. Most outbreaks occur in treated man-made water environments which are not
reflective of outcomes of Clean Water Act programs. Others occur in untreated natural
waters in smaller water bodies not affected by EPA programs or activities. Accordingly,
cooperation of database managers is required to identify specific outbreaks which should
be counted under this measure as occurring in waters of the United States.
The unit of analysis for the WBDO surveillance system is an outbreak, not an individual
case of a waterborne disease, although this information is reported. Two criteria must be
met for an event to be defined as a water-associated disease outbreak. First, two or more
people must have experienced a similar illness after exposure to water. This criterion is
waived for single cases of laboratory-confirmed primary amebic meningoencephalitis
(PAM). WBDOs associated with cruise ships are not summarized in the CDC report.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the
increased incidence of outbreaks from recreational water contact due to poor water
quality conditions. Controlling sources of water contamination would result in
maintaining or improving water quality conditions, thereby avoiding an increase in
outbreaks
QA/QC Procedures: Data are submitted to CDC on a standard reporting form in hard
copy by mail. Procedures for reporting outbreaks on the Internet for web-entry electronic
submission are currently under development. Upgrades to the reporting system to
incorporate electronic data reporting are anticipated to be implemented within the next
three years1. Currently, CDC annually obtains reports from state or territorial
-------
epidemiologists or persons designated as WBDO surveillance coordinators. Numeric and
text data are abstracted from the outbreak form and supporting documents and entered
into a database for analysis. Information on QA/QC procedures employed by the
individual states or other reporting entities is not included in the CDC reporting.
Data Quality Review: The CDC and EPA/ORD report team review the outbreak reports
to ensure the information is complete, following up with the state or local government to
obtain additional information where needed. There are currently no external party
reviews of this information conducted prior to publication.
WBDOs reported to the surveillance system are classified according to the strength of the
evidence implicating water as the vehicle of transmission. The classification scheme
(i.e., Classes I--IV) is based on the epidemiologic and water-quality data provided on the
outbreak report form. Epidemiologic data are weighted more than water-quality data.
Although outbreaks without water-quality data might be included in this summary,
reports that lack epidemiologic data were excluded. Single cases of PAM are not
classified according to this scheme. Weighting of epidemiologic data does not preclude
the relative importance of both types of data. The purpose of the outbreak reporting
system is not only to implicate water as the vehicle for the outbreak but also to
understand the circumstances that led to the outbreak.
Data Limitations: There are three primary limitations to the CDC WBDO data with
respect to this performance measure. The first limitation relates to original data forms
and the primary database itself not being available for external review. The implication
of this limitation is that database managers or report authors will have to be consulted to
identify which of the reported outbreaks have, in fact, occurred in Waters of the United
States. The second limitation is the fact that very few outbreaks have been reported over
the ten years of data that have been reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this
96
measure. " The implication of this measure is that were a small number of outbreaks to
occur within a given year, it may still be within the range of normal statistical variability
and therefore not an effective performance measure. Third, CDC issues its reports on a
variable schedule. Thus, our ability to report current data is hindered.
Another limitation of the data collected as part of the WBDO surveillance system is that
the information pertains only to disease outbreaks rather than endemic illness. The
epidemiologic trends and water-quality concerns observed in outbreaks might not
necessarily reflect or correspond with trends associated with endemic waterborne illness.
To address this problem, EPA and CDC are collaborating on the NEEAR Water Study to
assess the magnitude of waterborne illness associated with routine, non-outbreak-
associated exposure to marine and freshwater recreational areas.
Error Estimate: The relative quality of data and the error estimate associated with data
of a given quality are indicated by the classification of the outbreak report. A
classification of I indicates that adequate epidemiologic and water-quality data were
reported. Specifically, a classification of I indicates that adequate data were provided
about exposed and unexposed persons with a relative risk or odds ratio of =>2 or P value
-------
of =<0.05, which indicates statistical significance. Higher classification numbers (II-IV)
indicate relatively higher error estimates based on factors such as completeness of data
and sample size. For instance, outbreaks that affect fewer persons are more likely to
receive a classification of III rather than I because of the relatively limited sample size
available for analysis.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The manual reporting of WBDOs has
been practiced since the collaborative surveillance system for collecting and reporting
data began in 1971. Plans are still in place to transform the outbreak reporting system in
future years to incorporate electronic data reporting. It is anticipated that the
implementation of such upgrades will increase the number of reported outbreaks
substantially. An increased number of reported WBDOs resulting from electronic
reporting would require the baseline for the performance measure to be reset to a baseline
consistent with the new level of reporting in order to yield meaningful trends in the
occurrence of waterborne outbreaks in the future.
References
1. Yoder JS, Hlvasa MC, Craun GF, et al. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and
Outbreaks - United States, 2005-2006. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
September 12, 2008. MMWR2008;57(SS-09); 1-29.
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. Personal Communication w/
Calderon RL, author. Washington, DC, December 2005.
3. Yoder JS, Blackburn BG, Craun GF, Hill V, Levy DA, Calderon RL, et al.
Surveillance for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 2001—2002. In:
CDC Surveillance Summaries, October 22, 2004. MMWR2004;53(SS-08): 1-22
4. Lee SH, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1999—2000. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, November 22, 2002. MMWR 2002; 51(SS-8): 1-47.
5. Barwick RS, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for
waterborne disease outbreaks—United States, 1997—1998. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, May 26, 2000. MMWR 2000; 49 (No. SS-4):l-34.
6. Levy DA, Bens MS, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Herwaldt BL. Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1995—1996. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, December 11, 1998. MMWR 1998; 47(No. SS-5):l-34.
7. Kramer MH, Herwaldt BL, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Juranek DD. Surveillance
for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1993—1994. In: CDC
Surveillance Summaries, April 12, 1996. MMWR 1996; 45 (No. SS-l):l-33.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches
monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach
Advisories, Water quality standards, and Nutrients), This database includes fields
-------
identifying the beaches for which monitoring and notification information are available
and the date an advisory or closure was issued, thus enabling trend assessments to be
made. The database also identifies those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health) Act [P.L. 106-284] grant. EPA reports
the information annually, on a calendar year basis, each May. The calendar year data are
then used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g., 2009 calendar year data are used to
report against FY 2010 commitments). For the 2008 swimming season, states and
territories monitored for pathogens at 3,740 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. In re-
evaluating their beach programs, some states combined small beaches into larger beaches
during 2007, reducing the total number of beaches monitored (from 3,771 in 2006 to
3,602 in 2007), but maintaining the scope of their programs.1
Data Source: Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local governments for information
on their monitoring programs and on their advisories or closures. The Agency created
the PRAWN database to store this information. State and local governmental response to
the survey was voluntary up through calendar year 2002. Starting in calendar year 2003,
data for many beaches along the coast and Great Lakes had to be reported to EPA as a
condition of grants awarded under the BEACH Act. Since 2005, states have used an on-
line process called eBeaches to electronically transmit beach water quality and swimming
advisory information to EPA instead of using the paper survey. The latest information
reported by a state or local government is accessible to the public through the BEACON
(Beach Advisory Closing On-line Notification) system.
Methods and Assumptions: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-specific
advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during the year.
Performance against the target is tracked using a simple count of the number of beaches
responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure actions were
taken. This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could be open. Thus
the data are suitable for the performance measure.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the
frequency of beach closings primarily due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling
sources of contamination would result in water quality improvement at beach thereby
leading to fewer closures.
QA/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard survey form, approved
by OMB, to coastal and Great Lake state and county environmental and public health
beach program officials in hard copy by mail. The form is also available on the Internet
for web-entry electronic submission. When a state or local official enters data using the
web-entry format, a password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is completing the
survey. Currently the Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of
Water's "Quality Management Plan," approved September 2001 and published July
20023). In addition, coastal and Great Lakes states receiving BEACH Act grants are
subj ect to the Agency's grant regulations under 40 CFR 31.45. These regulations require
states and tribes to develop and implement quality assurance practices for the collection
of environmental information.
-------
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is
complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed. The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by
states and territories as part of their grant reporting. There have been no external party
reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the
survey and submission of data was voluntary. While the voluntary response rate was
high, it did not capture the complete universe of beaches. The voluntary response rate
was 92% in calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded). The
number of beaches for which information was collected increased from 1,021 in calendar
year 1997 to 2,823 in calendar year 2002. Participation in the survey is now a mandatory
condition for implementation grants awarded under the BEACH Act program to coastal
and Great Lakes states, with information now available for 3,602 of approximately 6,000
coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and Great Lakes states and territories
receive the implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2008, states
and territories reported that they monitored at 3,740 of the approximately 6,000 coastal
and Great Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies among states. For example, North
Carolina monitors all its 240 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors 23 of 299 beaches
it identified. Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the monitoring may
miss some instances of high pathogen concentrations. EPA's 2002 National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches found that 90% of the nation's beaches are monitored once
a week or less.4 Studies in southern California found that weekly sampling missed 75%
of the pathogen exceedances,5 and that 70% of the exceedances lasted for only one day.6
An EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) beach monitoring study found a
positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities one day as compared to
densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when compared to densities
after four days.7 These studies indicate that weekly sampling most likely misses many
pathogen events that can affect public health. This information is not sufficient to
calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to indicate that the
reporting may understate the number of days that beaches should be closed or under
advisory.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Four years after the passage of the BEACH Act many
states and territories were struggling to submit their data in a timely manner, impeding
our efforts to produce a timely annual report. The Information Technology (IT) system
used to capture beach reporting data was built shortly after the passage of the BEACH
Act to make maximum use of existing Agency data systems, especially STORET, at the
cost of some compromise in data flow efficiency. A plan was developed by working
closely with state data managers to address obstacles to data submittal: focusing
contractor support on technical assistance to the states; transmitting letters directly to
state program managers regarding the performance of their organizations in either
meeting, coming close, or not meeting the data submittal target dates; implementing
-------
systems changes to keep up with the pace of Agency system upgrades; and altering the
data architecture to simplify data flows.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2008 Swimming Season." EPA-
823-F-08-006. Washington, DC, May 2009. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2008/index.html
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/guidance/index.html
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming
Season." EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
5. Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
6. Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water
Quality at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology., 36(18),
2002.
7. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. "The EMPACT Beaches Project,
Results and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In
Recreational Waters." EPA 600/R-04/023. Washington, DC, August 2005.
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys (program
assessment measure)
Performance Database: Data generated from the national assessment will be housed in
the EPA Office of Water's STORE! (STOrage and RETrieval) data warehouse. Prior to
entering the STORET warehouse, all datasets are housed in a temporary facility, such as
ORD's SWIM database, where they are examined for QA purposes and undergo
statistical analysis. Finalized datasets transferred to the STORET warehouse will include
all water quality, physical and biological data and associated metadata for each survey.
The STORET warehouse is available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html. Once the data schema for biological and
habitat data are developed and deployed for the Exchange Network-based water quality
exchange (WQX), these data will be submitted to the warehouse via WQX.
Data Source: Data are collected, processed and analyzed through EPA-State
collaboration to assess and report on the condition of the nation's waters with
documented confidence. Under this partnership, samples are collected across the country
-------
during a specified index period for each resource. Sites are sampled one time, with
additional repeat samples collected at 10 percent of the sites to determine precision of
methods. Surveys collect a suite of indicators relating to the biological, physical habitat
and water quality of the resource in order to assess the resource condition and determine
the percentage meeting the goals of the CWA. Surveys will collect information on
biological and abiotic factors at 30-50 sites on an ecoregion level II scale for each
resource. Prior to sampling, field crews will undergo intensive training by EPA personnel
on field sampling and collection techniques. Laboratory analysis will be conducted at
either a state lab or contract lab following specified protocols for the survey. Data
collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), with subsequent testing and
auditing to ensure its application.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design, which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (specified
water resource, e.g., wadeable streams, lakes, rivers, etc.). The collection design
maximizes the spatial spread between sites, located by specific latitude and longitude
combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period to increase the probability
of accurately assessing condition and identifying any problems in water quality, physical
or biological indices if they exist. Based on the QAPP and field protocol documents, a
site is located by the sampling crew via Global Positioning System (GPS). Data are
collected for each parameter following the protocols outlined in the field operations
manual. Indices for the probabilistic surveys relate to the condition of the resource and
the extent that the waters are supporting the fishable and swimmable goals of the Clean
Water Act. Samples taken from the field are stored in accordance with field manual
instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories will follow quality
assurance (QA) plans and complete analysis and provide electronic information to the
state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set.
EPA and states analyze the data to assess regional and national condition of the water
resource surveyed. Results of the analyses on a national and regional basis will be
published in a publicly accessible peer reviewed report released within two years of
sample collection. The overall change in condition of the waterbody type will be assessed
on a five year cycle.
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (water resource sampled for
the survey) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and
field collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected;
(5) all analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) a
combination of data into indices is completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
Suitability: By design, all data are suitable to be aggregated up to the regional and
national level to characterize the ecological condition of the waterbody resource
and the associated stressors. Samples provide site specific point-in-time data and
excellent representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to the entire resource
supportable). Data will be used to characterize populations and subpopulations of
waterbody resources through time and space. Data analysis and interpretation will
be peer reviewed prior to completion of final report. The data are suitable for
-------
individual reports and to establish a baseline for subsequent surveys to evaluate
trends.
QA/QC Procedures: Collection and processing of all samples are described in QAPP
and Field Protocols documents associated with each survey. In addition, the QAPP will
contain specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Measurement Quality Objectives
(MQOs) associated with each survey. To ensure that the survey is obtaining the DQOs
and MQOs, there are several QA steps built into each survey. Training for all crew
members is required before sampling begins. Field evaluations are conducted for all
crews to ensure methods are being followed. Each laboratory involved in the sample
processing will adhere to the specified laboratory protocols and undergo a thorough and
documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process. Submitted data will
undergo a final QC check before analysis begins.
Data Quality Reviews: A peer review and public comment period will be held for each
survey. During this time, the draft report will be posted on the web for interested parties
to review and submit comments. An independent group of experts will be selected to
serve on a peer review panel for the report. In house audits will also be conducted over
the course of the survey.
Data Limitations: Because the data are collected in a manner to permit calculations of
uncertainty and designed to meet specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), the results at
the regional level are within about 2-4% of true values dependent upon the specific
sample type. Detailed QA/QC checks throughout the survey reduce the data limitations
and errors in sampling. The scale of the reporting units is limited by the number of
samples taken in a specific region. To make a statistically valid statement about the
condition of the resource, sample size should minimally include 30-50 sites per region.
Since samples are collected one time at each site per survey, trends analysis will depend
on future survey work. Lag time between sample collection and reporting will be between
1-2 years.
Error Estimate: The estimation of condition will vary for the national condition and the
regional condition for each survey. The condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and statistically-based uncertainty
estimates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Additional indicators, addressing regional specific
needs can be added to the survey over time. QA requirements will be met by all
laboratories participating in the surveys. Probabilistic surveys repeated on the same
waterbody type utilizing a similar sample design will show condition trends for the
resource on a broad geographic scale.
References:
Olsen, A. R. et al. 1999. Statistical Issues for Monitoring Ecological and Natural
Resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54, 1-45
-------
Stevens Jr., D. L. & Urqhart, N. S. 2000. Response Designs and Support Regions in
Sampling Continuous Domains. Environmetrics 11, 11-41
Stevens Jr., D. L. 1997. Variable Density Grid-based Sampling Designs for Continuous
Spatial Populations. Environmetrics 8, 167-195
STORET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STOJAET/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-
620/R-01/005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II.
EPA-620/R-03/002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment. EPA-841-
B-06-002 http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale) (program assessment
long-term outcome measure)
• Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment) database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf
Ecology Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf
Breeze, FL (Gulf Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for
data where they are examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and
undergo initial statistical analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion
are transferred to EMAP/NCA database and are web available at
www.epa.gov/emap/nca. The final data are then migrated to the STORET data
warehouse for integration with other water quality data with metadata documenting its
quality.
Data Source: Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the
Mid- Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
in 1991-1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-
Atlantic in 1997-1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in
Alaska in 2002 and 2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and
2004, and in other island territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in
2004. Surveys collect condition information regarding water quality, sediment quality
and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/Region (e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection
prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or territory/year (site number dependent
upon state) after 1999. Additional sampling by the National Estuary Program (NEP)
included all individual national estuaries; the total number of sites within NEP boundaries
was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2002.
-------
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States
follow a rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA
personnel. Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a
national EPA contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(either the National Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by
EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a
probabilistic survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population
(in this case - all estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design
maximizes the spatial spread between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude
combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to
increase the probability of encountering water quality, sediment quality and biotic
condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP and field collection manual, a site
in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global Positioning System (GPS) and
water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water samples are taken for
chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and benthic
community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and
shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete
analyses and provide electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state
exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess
Regional conditions, whereas the states analyze the data to assess conditions of state-
specific waters. Results of analyses on a national and Regional basis are reported as
chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series. The overall Regional
condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores used in the Coastal
Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for direct
comparison of the successive reports). One of the indicators needs to improve by a full
category unit over the eight year period for the Regional estimate to meet the
performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an eight year period).
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the
United States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field
collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all
analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data
into indices are completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
Suitability: By design all data are suitable to be aggregated to the state and
Regional level to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition.
Samples represent "reasonable", site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of
data use) and an excellent representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to entire
resource supportable). The intended use of the data is the characterization of populations
and subpopulations of estuarine resources through time. The data meet this expectation
and the sampling, response, analysis and reporting designs have been peer reviewed
-------
successfully multiple times. The data are suitable for individual calendar year
characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and assessment of
long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable for use
in National Coastal Condition calculations for the United States and its Regions to
provide performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis
appeared in the NCCRIII representing trends between 1990-2002.
QA/QC Procedures: The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by
a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal
Assessment Information Management Plan (IMP)[EPA 2001]. These plans are followed
by all twenty-three coastal states and 5 island territories. Adherence to the plans are
determined by field training (conducted by EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD), round robin testing of chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD),
overall systems audits of state programs and national laboratory practices (conducted by
EPA), sample splits (sent to reference laboratories), blind samples (using reference
materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by EPA/ORD). Batch
sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA samples in each
batch. All states are subject to audits at least once every two years. All participants
receive training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA
ORD at the Regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment
2000-2003) and by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003. No
deficiencies were found in the program. A national laboratory used in the program
(University of Connecticut) for nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue
chemistry is being evaluated by the Inspector General's Office for potential falsification
of laboratory results in connection with other programs not related to NCA. The NCA
has conducted its own audit assessment and only one incorrect use of a chemical
digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was found. This error was
corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no cost.
Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner
to permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality
Objective (DQO) (<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the
results at the Regional level (appropriate for this performance measure) are within about
2- 4% of true values dependent upon the specific sample type. Other limitations as
follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are minimized by audits, in the first year of
the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting in loss of some data. These
problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been observed since, (b) In some
instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found irregularities regarding the
precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls exceeded detection
limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were "flagged" so that users are aware of the potential
limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small scale
(~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of
condition. Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states
and territories would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure, (d) The only
-------
major source of external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet,
major climatic event, etc.) and the only source of internal variation is modification of
reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in data collected and analyzed). This
internal reporting modification requires a re-analysis of earlier information to permit
direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag from the time of collection until
reporting. Sample analysis generally takes one year and data analysis another. Add
another year for report production and peer review, (f) Data collections are completed
annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration continued through 2004.
Beginning in 2005, ORD began assisting OW, as requested, with expert advice, but
discontinued its financial support of the program.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-
7% for individual Regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a Regional
estimate), and about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are
determined from the survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the
uncertainty estimates are calculated using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on
competition. QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing
at these facilities is completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence
and cross-laboratory sample analysis has minimized data variability resulting
from new laboratories entering the program.
(2) Data from ORD's National Coastal Assessment Program (NCA) for 2003-2006
will be presented in the NCCRIV. This report is projected to be available at the
end ot calendar 2011.
(3) ORD's National Coastal Assessment Program has ended and the Office of Water
is now administering the program as part of the National Aquatic Resource
Surveys. The next coastal survey is scheduled for summer 2010.
References:
1. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National
Coastal Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and
www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present)
2. National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding
results of QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator
NCA, USEPA, ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
3. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R-
01/002.(Available through John Macauley above)
-------
4. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-
01/003 (Available through Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator,
ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI)
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report.
EPA-620/R- 01/005.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report
II. EPA-620/R-03/002.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. National Coastal Condition Report
III. EPA 842-R-08-002.
FY 2011 Performance Measures;
• Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (program
assessment long-term and annual measure)
• Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by States in
2002
• Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using
the watershed approach
• Cost per water segment now fully attaining standards (program assessment
annual efficiency)
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results
System (WATERS- found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing
water quality information related to these measures. WATERS can be used to view
information compiled from states' listings of impaired waters as required by Clean Water
Act Section 303(d), which are recorded in the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and
Implementation System (ATTAINS). This information (found at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/waterslO/attains nation cy.control?p report tvpe=T) is used to
generate reports that identify waters that are not meeting water quality standards
("impaired waters") and that need one or more TMDLs to be developed. ATTAINS also
includes information on other impaired waters for which TMDLs have been completed.
See "New and Improved Data Systems" for more information on the ATTAINS database.
There are several reasons why EPA or states may determine that specific waterbodies
listed as impaired in 2002, the baseline year, are no longer impaired in the current
reporting year. For example, water quality might improve due to EPA or state actions to
reduce point and nonpoint source discharges of pollutants. In other cases, a state or EPA
might conduct more robust monitoring studies and use these data to complete more
accurate assessments of water quality conditions. In some cases, a state might modify its
water quality standards, in accordance with EPA's regulations, to update scientific criteria
or to better reflect the highest attainable conditions for its waters. Each of these examples
represents a case where an impaired water may no longer exceed water quality standards.
Any such removals of waterbody impairments will be recorded based on reports from
states scheduled every two years through 2012.
-------
EPA's measure that tracks the improvement of water quality conditions utilizes the
information on impairments described above and incorporates two additional features:
12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) boundaries and data on "watershed-wide water
quality improvement." In 2009 boundaries and data on 12-digit HUC code watersheds
were completed, certified and stored on USDA's comprehensive website for HUC
watershed information (see
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html). Data on water
quality improvements (e.g., a 20% reduction in nitrogen levels) will be documented via
the extensive process laid out in computational guidance for this measure and for the
measures on water quality standards and waterbody impairment (see
http ://www. epa.gov/water/waterplan/pamsfy08/def_wq08 .html).
Data Source: The primary data source for these measures is state 303(d) lists of their
impaired waterbodies needing development of TMDLs, and required submittals of
monitoring information pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. These
lists/reports are submitted each biennial reporting cycle. Most states have provided this
information in Integrated Reports, pursuant to EPA guidance (see "New/Improved Data
Systems" below). The baseline for this measure is the derived from the 2002 reporting
cycle. States prepare lists/reports using actual water quality monitoring data, probability-
based monitoring information, and other existing and readily available information and
knowledge the state has, in order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the
total extent of the state's waterbody impairments. Once EPA approves a state's 303(d)
list, the information is entered into ATTAINS, as described above. Throughout 2006 and
2007, EPA worked with states that did not submit Integrated Reports in 2002 to
supplement their 2002 303(d) lists of impaired waters needing TMDLs with waters that
were also impaired in 2002 but were not on 303(d) lists because all needed TMDLs were
complete. Thus, EPA now has a more complete list of impaired waters for tracking under
these measures.
The efficiency measure for the section 106 grant program is derived by dividing the
cumulative actual expenditures or President Budget requests for the section 106 grant
program, plus state funding matches for these grants (as reported to EPA by the states),
by the cumulative number of waterbody segments now fully attaining standards.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: States employ various analytical methods of
data collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of
chemical, physical, and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality
standards attainment; 3) Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of
data from volunteer groups, academic interests and others. EPA-supported models
include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX, and CORMDC Descriptions of these models
and instructions for their use can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/models/.
The standard operating procedures and deviations from standard methods for data
sampling and prediction processes are stored by many states in the STOrage and
RETrieval (STORET) database.
-------
States exercise considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available
information to make decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in
accordance with state water quality standards. EPA then aggregates state data to generate
national performance measures.
Delays are often encountered in state 303(d) lists and 305(b) submissions, and in EPA's
approval of the 303(d) portion of these biennial submissions. EPA encourages states to
effectively assess their waters and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely
submittal of required § 303(d) lists of impaired waters. While continuing to strive for
100% on-time list submittals, there was a significant improvement in timely list
submissions for the 2008 Integrated Reporting Cycle. EPA will continue to work with
states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georeferenced data submissions. Also,
EPA is heightening efforts to ensure expeditious review of the 303(d) list submissions
with national consistency, and EPA saw dramatic improvements in the average number
of days it takes to review State's 303(d) lists for the 2008 Integrated Reporting Cycle.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state
303(d) lists (under CWA Section 303(d)) and/or Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Reports) is
dependent on individual state procedures. EPA regional staff interact with the states
during the process of approval of the lists and before the information is entered into the
database to ensure the integrity of the data, consistent with the Office of Water Quality
Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires that each organization prepare a document
called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality policy; describes its quality
system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system applies
(e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Recent independent reports have cited that weaknesses in
monitoring and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the
condition of the Nation's waters and to support scientifically sound water program
decisions. The most recent reports include the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting
Office report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,
EPA 's Draft Report on the Environment, and the 2007, Office of the Inspector General
report, Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to
Demonstrate Environmental Results.
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other
stakeholders to improve: 1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all
waters of the state; 2) data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state
data to the national level; and 3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies
are fully understood by data users.
First, EPA enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the National
Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information.
Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool called WATERS that integrates many databases
including STORET, ATTAINS, and a water quality standards database. These integrated
-------
databases facilitate comparison and understanding of differences among state standards,
monitoring activities, and assessment results.
Third, EPA and states have developed guidance. The 2006 Integrated Report Guidance
(released August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG) provides
comprehensive direction to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act
sections 305(b) and 303(d). EPA also issued a 2010 Integrated Report clarification
memo (released May 5, 2009 available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance/final52009.html) which includes suggestions
for the use of the rotating basin approach and Category 3, circumstances and expectation
for "partial approval/further review pending" determinations, and using and reporting on
Statewide Statistical Survey Data in ATTAINS And the National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress.
Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of
Best Practices (released on the Web July 31, 2002, at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.htmB intended to facilitate increased consistency
in monitoring program design and the data and decision criteria used to support water
quality assessments.
Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPA's Regional Offices have developed the
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program., (March 2008). This
guidance describes ten elements that each state water quality monitoring program should
contain and directs states to develop monitoring strategies that propose time-frames for
implementing all ten elements.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters
because states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States,
territories and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their waterbodies.
States do not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of
water quality standards. For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from
biological community assessments to levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of
toxic pollutants. These variations in state practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b)
reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can be used to describe water quality at the
national level. There are also differences among sampling techniques, and standards.
State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or
modeled data. Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the
agency from aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known
statistical confidence. States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify
problems and typically lag times between data collection and reporting can vary by state.
Also, as noted above under Methods, Assumptions and Suitability, states exercise
considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available information to make
decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water
-------
quality standards. EPA then aggregates these various state decisions to generate national
performance measures.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to
improve the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. In 2005 EPA issued listing
guidance entitled Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act. This document provided
a comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA had issued to date regarding the
Integrated Report. It included some specific changes from the 2004 guidance. For
example, the 2006 Integrated Report Guidance provided greater clarity on the content and
format of those components of the Integrated Report that are recommended and required
under Clean Water Act sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314. The guidance also gave
additional clarity and flexibility on reporting alternatives to TMDLs for attaining water
quality standards (e.g., utilization of reporting Category 4b).
In October 2006 EPA released Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions., 18 months in
advance of the April 2008 Integrated Report due date. More than three times the number
of states submitted their Integrated Report lists to EPA by the April 1, 2008, deadline
compared to 2006. Timely submittal and EPA review of integrated reports is important to
demonstrate state and EPA success in accomplishing Strategic Plan goals for water
quality. The timelier reporting may be attributed in part to our early issuance of the 2008
Integrated Report Memorandum. EPA recently finished its 2010 Integrated Report
Memorandum to promote 100 percent timely 2010 submissions from all 56 states and
territories.
EPA has combined the former National TMDL Tracking System and the former National
Assessment Database into one integrated system, ATTAINS, which became operational
in May 2008. ATTAINS tracks the status of all assessed waters and waterbody
impairments, including impaired waterbodies. Also, EPA released the Water Quality
Exchange (WQX) which provides data exchange capability to any organization that
generates data of documented quality and would like to contribute that data to the
national STORET data warehouse so that their data may be used in combination with
other sources of data to track improvements in individual watersheds. Currently data
providers must transmit data and required documentation through their own Exchange
Network node. EPA rolled out a web data entry tool called WQXweb for users who have
not invested in the node technology.
References:
USEPA, 2008, EPA 's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 90806
-------
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program
Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf
USEPA, Office of Water. 2006. Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html,
USEPA, Office of Water. 2005. Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG.,
USEPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 2003. 2003-2008 Strategic Plan:
Direction for the Future. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf
USEPA. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index. htaL
USEPA, Office of Water. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. Washington, DC. Available at
www. epa. gov/owow/monitoring/elements/.
USEPA. 2002. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a
Compendium of Best Practices. Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
Government Accountability Office. 2002. Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches
Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify its Most Polluted Waters. GAO-02-186.
Washington, DC.
Government Accountability Office. 2000. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. GAO-RCED-00-54. Washington, DC.
FY 2011 Performance Measures;
• Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on
a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) (program assessment
measure)
• Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State
TMDLs] on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) (program
assessment measure)
Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality
standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.
-------
Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Tracking And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is the database which captures water
quality information related to these measures. ATTAINS is an integrated system capable
of documenting and managing the connections between state assessment and listing
decisions reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated reporting) and
completed TMDL information. This system holds information about assessment
decisions and restoration actions across reporting cycles and over time until water quality
standards are attained. TMDL information (found at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/waterslO/attains nation cy.control?p report type=T) is used to
generate reports that identify waters for which EPA has approved state-submitted
TMDLs and for which EPA has established TMDLs. Annual TMDL totals, spanning
1996 to the present, are available from ATTAINS on a fiscal year basis. As TMDLs and
other watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, waterbodies which
were once impaired will meet water quality standards. Thus these TMDL measures are
closely tied to the program assessment measure, "Number of waterbody segments
identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are
now fully attained." Newly attaining waterbodies will be removed from the list of
impaired water segments.
Data Source: State-submitted and EPA-approved TMDLs and EPA-established TMDLs
are the underlying data for these measures. Electronic and hard copies are made
available by states and often linked to EPA Web sites. More specifically, the Watershed
Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results system allows search for TMDL
documents at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl_document_search.html.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: State and EPA TMDLs are thoroughly and
publicly reviewed during their development. Upon approval by EPA, relevant
information from each TMDL is entered into ATTAINS by EPA Regional staff.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data is provided by EPA Regional staff and through
cross-checks of ATTAINS information regarding impaired water listings, consistent with
the Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires that organizations prepare a
document called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality policy; describes its
quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system
applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some
inconsistencies in the methodology of data entry between EPA Regional Offices. In 2005
and 2006, EPA convened a meeting of NTTS users to discuss how to improve the
database. As a result, data field definitions were clarified, the users' group was
reinstituted, several training sessions were scheduled, and an ATTAINS design team is
currently directing the database upgrades. One of the issues raised included the
methodology used to count TMDLs. Previous methodology generated a TMDL "count"
based on the causes of impairment removed from the 303(d) impaired waters list as well
as the TMDL pollutant. EPA proposed to change the counting methodology to directly
reflect only the pollutants given allocations in TMDLs. During a recent EPA Office of
-------
the Inspector General review they concurred with this recommendation. This proposed
change was vetted during the TMDL Program's annual meeting in March 2007 and
implemented in August 2007, resulting in a cumulative net reduction of 1,577 TMDLs.
Current realization of targets shows the TMDL Program continues to attain program
assessment and Strategic Plan targets despite the adjustment to the counting
methodology.
Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information,
EPA continues to improve the database and oversee quality review of existing data. Data
quality has been improving and will continue to improve as existing data entry
requirements and procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry
practitioners.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for these data.
New/Improved Data Systems: See above
References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program
Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2005. Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdf
National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the
TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Link to TMDL report data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Link to the Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS)
can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any
time during the fiscal year (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that
comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards (program
assessment measure)
Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit
compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include major
permittee self reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on
permittee compliance status, data on state and EPA inspection and enforcement response.
Data Source: Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or
EPA Regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the
pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit. This automated
process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted
levels. Facilities are designated as being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when
reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above permitted levels for toxic
pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants. PCS
contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site inspections, which are used
to determine SNC, including: non-effluent limit violations such as unauthorized
bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which cause water
quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of DMRs;
submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement
orders.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to
compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also
calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether
toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references]
are in place for PCS data entry. State and regional PCS data entry staff are required to
take PCS training courses [See references]. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are
prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for
ensuring timely input, review and certification of PCS information. OC's current QMP,
effective for 5 years, was approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI). The required re-approval of OECA's QMP has been prepared and is
in the management approval process at this time.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in PCS is required by policy to be
reviewed by regional and headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy. SNC data in
PCS are reviewed quarterly.
Data Limitations: Legal requirements for permittees to self report data on compliance
with effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and
accuracy. EPA monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and data
entry quality. National trends over the past several years show an average of 94% of
DMRs is entered timely and complete. Where data entry problems are observed, OECA
works directly with regions and states to improve performance, and in limited
circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant resources to help regions and states
correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation OECA is working to deploy
-------
an electronic DMR process to save resources on data entry workload and reduce data
input errors.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980s and has
undergone periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a
modernized data system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and
analytical approaches. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated
Compliance Information System - NPDES), a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 when eleven states began using the system; seven other states
will be migrated to the new system in August. During phased implementation of ICIS-
NPDES across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate
SNC data. Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES
SNC data.
References:
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of States and Territories that within the preceding three year
period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA
that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
considered in the previous standards, (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from
States and Territories that are approved by EPA (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application
(WATA), an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and
Technology described at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the
performance database for these measures. The information in this system provides the
baseline and performance data for these measures.
Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states
and territories of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. States and territories are
required to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and submit
any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval. Each
submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official, and includes a
certification by the state or territorial attorney general that the standards were duly
adopted pursuant to state or territorial law.
-------
EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter
it into the WATA system. The information includes identifying data (name of
jurisdiction, date of submission), data concerning components of the submission, and data
concerning EPA's action on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and
disapproval decisions to the Regional Administrator; the Regional Administrator may re-
delegate the decisions to the appropriate Division Director, but no further. Approval
decisions are judicially reviewable, and are accompanied by an appropriate
administrative record.
Methods and Assumptions:
The Office of Science and Technology has established computation metrics in the Water
Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA) system to produce the baselines
and performance data for both measures. These metrics are as follows:
• Percentage of State and Territorial water quality standards submissions (received in
the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by EPA.
Partial approvals receive fractional credit.
This metric considers all new or revised submissions from May 1 of the previous year
through April 30 of the current year. This reporting period provides EPA Regional
Offices at least five months to reach and document a valid approval decision. EPA
management believes this is an adequate time for processing most submissions. A
"submission" is determined by the submitting jurisdiction, as described above. The
metric then searches for whether the Regional Office has made any approval decision
concerning the submission. If EPA approves the submission in full by the end of the
reporting period, it will be counted with an approval value of 1. If EPA disapproves all
provisions of the standards, it will be counted with an approval value of 0 (zero). In
some cases the Regional decision official may decide to approve some portions of the
standards provisions, disapprove some portions, or defer actions on some portions. To
accommodate these possibilities, and to reflect the complex nature of some submissions,
the WATA system allows Regional staff to track portions of a submission as separate
parts with weights corresponding to the number of actual provisions involved. When
different decisions are reached on different parts or provisions of a submission, the metric
calculates a fractional approval value. The fractional approval value is a number between
0 and 1, equal to the number of provisions approved, divided by the total number of
provisions in the original submission. For example, if a submission contains 10
provisions and EPA approves 8 and disapproves 2, then the metric would count this as
0.8 submissions. The final performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval
values divided by the total number of submissions during the reporting period.
• Number of States and Territories that within the preceding three year period
submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous
standards
-------
This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the WATA system which indicates
whether a submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria
or revised criteria that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
considered in the previous criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in
designated uses would count under this entry. If a state or territory has not adopted any
such criteria, the jurisdiction can nevertheless be counted under this measure if (a) EPA
has issued new or revised water quality criteria, including revisions to the published table
of EPA recommended criteria at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable, but
the state has determined through a scientific assessment that such a change is not relevant
for its waters, or (b) the jurisdiction could certify to EPA that it has completed a
defensible scientific review of the new scientific information EPA has issued and has
determined that no changes are needed to their existing water quality criteria. The metric
searches for one or more qualifying submissions or submission parts for each jurisdiction
during the three-year period ending five months before the end of the reporting period,
and that have been approved by EPA by the end of the reporting period. For example,
for FY 2011 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2011, that
were approved by September 30, 2011, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note
the overlap from one reporting year to the next: a state that last made such a submittal, in,
say, February 2009, could be counted in FYs 2009, FY 2010, and FY 2011 but not in FY
2012.
Suitability: These two performance measures provide important information about how
well EPA and states/territories are carrying out their respective roles and responsibilities
for establishing and approving up-to-date scientifically defensible WQS. The first
measure describes how well EPA and states/territories are working together to set revised
WQS that EPA can approve in a timely fashion. The second measure provides an
indicator of how well states' WQS reflect latest scientific data.
QA/QC Procedures: States and territories conduct QA/QC of water quality standards
submissions pursuant to individual state procedures. Because such submissions are
subject to judicial review, the attorney general's certification described above provides
assurance of the content of each submission. EPA regional staffs provide support to and
interact with the jurisdictions as they develop, review, and adopt water quality standards.
Each Regional Office provides data quality review of its entries in the WATA system.
For example, Regional Offices generally assure that each entry is reviewed by the water
quality standards coordinator, usually a senior scientist or environmental protection
specialist with extensive experience in water quality standards actions. Data validation
algorithms built into each entry screen also help improve data quality. In addition, a
sample of entries is spot-checked by Headquarters' Office of Science and Technology
staff. The Regions and Headquarters have been able to conduct the data quality reviews
fairly easily because the number of submissions has averaged about 50 to 60 submissions
per year in recent years, which is within the range than can be adequately reviewed with
available resources.
Data Quality Review: No external reviews of the data have been conducted.
-------
Data Limitations: Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity. For
example, a submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use
attainability analyses for specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific
types of waters, general statewide policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and
variances. Therefore, these measures - the number of submissions approved, and the
number of jurisdictions with updated scientific information contained in adopted
standards - do not provide an indicator of the scope, geographic coverage, policy
importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards. This information
would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by reviewing the content of adopted and
approved standards available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/,
or contacting the appropriate Regional Office or state/territorial personnel.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Science and Technology is continuing to
enhance the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality.
References:
USEPA. May 1,2009. Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users
Guide. Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.
USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40
CFR part 131. Available at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfrl 3 l_05.html.
USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (millions of pounds), phosphorous
(millions of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only.) (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: The Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System
(GRTS) is used by grant recipients (State agencies) to supply information about State
NFS Management Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which
include watershed-based BMP implementation projects. GRTS includes information
about Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented under 319-funded watershed
projects, and the NFS load reductions achieved as a result of implementation. EPA uses
GRTS to compile and report information about state section 319 program projects,
including load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.
State reporting via GRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Sections 319(h)(ll) and 319(m)(l); however, GRTS also provides EPA and other
-------
stakeholders greater and more efficient access to data, information, and program
accomplishments than would otherwise be available. Besides load reduction information,
GRTS, in conjunction with WATERS (see below) provides detailed georeferencing (i.e.,
National Hydrography Dataset - or "NHD"~ reach addresses) for 319-funded projects,
project cost information, and a host of other elements.
GRTS is also part of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
System (WATERS), which is used to provide water program information and display it
spatially using a geographic information system integrated with several existing
databases. These databases include the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database, the
Assessment TMDL Tracking and ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS), the Water
Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), and GRTS.
Data Source: States enter load reduction data for individual 319-funded projects into
GRTS. Various watershed models are used in the States to estimate the load reductions
resulting from implementation of BMPs. Two models used by many states, and directly
supported by EPA, are the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL)
model, and the "Region 5" model. States, at their discretion, may use other models or
methods (e.g., AGNPs, SWAT, GWLF, etc), or may use actual water monitoring data to
generate estimates of pollutant load reduction resulting from BMP implementation. The
load reduction data generated by modeling and/or monitoring efforts are entered by State
staff directly into the appropriate GRTS data fields.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ two main methods to make
pollutant load reduction estimates for the purpose of entering information into GRTS: 1)
watershed models to estimate load reductions after watershed project BMPs are
implemented, and 2) direct sampling over time of pollutants using targeted site selection.
Even direct sampling methods, however, usually involve some type of modeling to
separate BMP effects from other variables when determining load reductions.
EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national load
reduction number for each pollutant. In the past, we had to calculate the annual load
reduction achieved as an increment from the previous year. With each successive time
period - each of which includes load reduction estimates from projects funded under
more than one fiscal year grant (since BMPs are still "working" for some time after initial
installation) - the total from the previous period would be subtracted from the total of the
current time period to get the incremental total. For example, our first report on national
load reduction numbers in the program assessment included projects funded from FY
2002 and most of FY 2003 (FY 2002 was the first grant year for which load reduction
information was mandated). For the next report we totaled load reductions for projects
from FY 2002 through 2004, with a smattering of projects for FY 2005 for which
information was available in GRTS. The total from the first time around was subtracted
from this latter total to give us the increment.
In an effort to improve the accuracy of the annual national load reduction amount, we
have modified this method of calculating the annual increment. We explicitly instruct the
-------
States to enter their load reduction values within the year they should be reported, and to
only enter new (not cumulative) load reduction amounts. Then, because the GRTS can
automatically track when the State enters the load reduction in the database, we simply
sum the load reductions entered within the reporting timeframes. The user can also make
corrections to report the load reductions entered at the wrong time by associating a load
reduction date to the value.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is
dependent on individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans
(QMPs), which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.
EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5
models. EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be
developed (in accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects,
especially where water quality models are being used or where monitoring is being
conducted. EPA also stresses that site-specific parameters be used whenever possible for
input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by some
modeling tools.
States have continual access and opportunity to review the information in GRTS to
ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA procedures).
EPA periodically reviews GRTS and reminds states of the critical importance of their
completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner.
Data Quality Review: Data entered in GRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA
Regions and Headquarters. Regional personnel also maintain hardcopies of the states
work programs, watershed project implementation plans, and Annual Progress Reports.
Verification of data in GRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure
quality, consistency, and reliability in progress reporting on an incremental (such as,
year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in data quality in GRTS. EPA frequently
reviews various aggregation(s) of all the data in GRTS by our use of "ad-hoc" and
standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system.
In the past, Nonpoint Source Program reporting under Section 319 had been identified as
an Agency-level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. The
Agency's establishment and subsequent enhancements of GRTS has served to mitigate
this problem by requiring states to identify the activities and results of projects funded
with Section 319(h). In response to the FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with
states and other stakeholders to improve data input and quality. We sponsor national
GRTS-users group meetings each year. These meetings serve not only to meet the
training needs of the user community, but also provide a forum for discussing needed
enhancements to GRTS. These enhancements range from better capturing environmental
results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-by-state comparisons.
The CWA Sections 319(h)(l 1) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint
Source Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load
-------
reductions, and water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of
Water (OW) authority to require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to
require reporting by states to demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source
pollutant loads and improving water quality. OW has issued several guidance documents
designed to improve state NPSMPs, watershed-based projects, and consistency in state
progress reporting, including their use of GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued
"Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants."
This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in GRTS load reductions for
nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects). Our current
"National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines" (October, 2003) includes
sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting.
Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source
program activity measures (PAMs) — including nonpoint load reductions — which are
now part of EPA's Strategic Plan. We have also communicated (e.g., via email) to states
further detailed explanations of the NFS program activity measures, expected reporting
sources and dates, and results of our reviews of data input to GRTS by the States.
Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not
integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies,
and therefore use of the data may be rather limited. Load reduction data are typically
generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in
model inputs and outputs. States generally do not apply model results to decision-
making for implementing and/or revising their NFS Management Programs.
State assessments of load reductions and water quality typically include uncertainties
associated with any measuring or modeling tools. Variability in the environment, as well
as in state methods and application of tools limit the accuracy of data for describing load
reductions and water quality at the project level. Aggregating the load reduction data up
to the national measure compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the
Agency from assigning a reasonable numerical confidence level to it.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A significant improvement to the GRTS was the
conversion from a Lotus Domino system to an Oracle database in 2005. Oracle is the
standard database used by Federal agencies. Conversion to Oracle will allow GRTS to
seamlessly connect with WATERS, as well as facilitate potential linkages to a variety of
other databases, models, and watershed planning tools. The Oracle-based GRTS will
greatly improve reporting capabilities for all end users. Reports are easily customized to
fit programmatic needs of both State and EPA.
Another focus of improvement has been to simplify the georeferencing process for GRTS
users. In 2008, we released a new mapping tool, which makes it much easier for States to
geolocate their 319 projects and identify the impacted waterbodies. This tool links to the
WATERS database, enabling linkages between 319 projects and other water program
features, such as impaired waters. In addition, GRTS users and the public can query for
-------
319 projects using a similar map interface. These improvements in mapping 319 projects
have made it easier to answer questions for stakeholders, like "Where are watershed
projects being developed and implemented? Are they concurrent with impaired waters
and established TMDLs? Do they pursue actions necessary to reduce pollutant loads and
attain water quality standards?"
We are also making efforts to ease the data entry burden on the States by offering them
the flexibility of entering their data in different formats. States currently have the option
to either enter their data over the web using an online form, or directly upload their
information into GRTS as an XML file. Many States have expressed interest in using
XML but are unfamiliar with the technology. EPA will provide training on XML at our
annual User Group Meeting, and through a series of webinars. Also, since most users are
familiar with Microsoft Excel, we will develop an Excel template for XML import.
Training on STEPL and the Region 5 model are ongoing in hopes of minimizing
operational mistakes for State staff utilizing one or both of these models to estimate
section 319 project load reductions.
References: USEPA. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and
Territories. October 23, 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319
Grants. September 27, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. GRTS. Grants Tracking and Reporting System. GRTS Web User Guide,
Version 1.6 March 15, 2007.
USEPA. WATERS. Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results.
(http ://www. epa. gov/waters/).
USEPA. NHDPlus. National Hydrography Dataset Plus (http://www.horizon-
systems.com/nhdplus/).
USEPA. STORET. Storage and Retrieval (http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html).
USEPA. NAD. National Assessment Database (http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/).
USEPA. WQSDB. Water Quality Standards Database
(http ://www. epa. gov/wqsdatabase/).
USEPA. STEPL. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (http://it.tetratech-
ffx.com/stepl/).
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are issued in
-------
the fiscal year (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
year (program assessment measure)
Performance Database:
U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC
[Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
U.S. EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES).
[database]. Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance]
Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) [database].
Washington, DC [Office of Water]
Priority Permits Data Base, [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office
of Water]
Permit Management Oversight System (PMOS). [web-based database].
Washington, DC [Office of Water]
EPA has carried out detailed permit renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since
November 1998. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS-NPDES) are used to determine which individual permits are
current through date fields for permit issuance and expiration. To supplement the
individual permit data from PCS, EPA uses the Permit Management Oversight System
(PMOS) database to track the current or expired status of facilities covered under non-
storm water general permits as well as to track issuance of priority permits. Prior to
PMOS, the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) was used to track non-
storm water general permit facilities since January 2001.
In March 2004 a new priority permit issuance strategy was initiated under the Permitting
for Environmental Results (PER) program. The priority permits issuance strategy
focuses permitting activities on environmentally and administratively significant expired
permits. The PMOS database is a web-based system that tracks the specific permits that
each State and Region has identified as priority. States and Regions enter the permits,
and EPA HQ uses PCS/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of these permits.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS
and/or ICIS-NPDES, and States and EPA's Regional offices are responsible for entering
data into the PMOS. EPA's Regional offices and States also enter permit identification
information into the Priority Permits database.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annually, Office of Wastewater Management
(OWM) provides State and Regional authorities with a list of candidate priority permits,
defined as permits that have been expired for two years or more. Beginning in F Y 2008,
States and Regions were permitted to add to this list additional high-priority permits that
were expired less than two years or those that would expire within the fiscal year of
reporting. States and Regions then use several programmatic and environmental criteria
to select which of those candidate permits should be prioritized for issuance. They then
-------
commit to issue a certain number of permits over the next fiscal year. Regions enter their
commitments into PMOS. Results are confirmed using PCS/ICIS-NPDES reports.
QA/QC Procedures: The PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are managed by the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); PMOS is a web-based system that
is managed by the Office of Water (OW). EPA Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA review
data submitted by states as part of the QA/QC process. In addition, OW continues to
work with States and Regions to improve the quality and completeness of the data. EPA
generates state-by-state reports that list PCS/ICIS-NPDES "key data" fields, lat/long, and
compliance and enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and Regions
for review and cleanup. EPA is providing support to upload these data to PCS.
Data Quality Review: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level Weakness
under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This weakness affects
EPA's ability to obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately,
permit event data such as the permit issuance and expiration data needed for this
performance measure are generally better populated than other "key" data elements. As
noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data upload, data entry, and, if
necessary, data compilation to improve data quality. This has resulted in improved
tracking of data, particularly industrial permits.
The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 and twenty-eight states and several territories have
successfully migrated to the new system. Use of ICIS-NPDES should greatly increase
state participation and data quality. Batch states (those states with their own data
systems) will not be migrated to ICIS-NPDES until appropriate mechanisms are in place
to transfer the data.
Data Limitations: Priority Permits data are verified and reliable. We are aware of data
gaps in PCS in general, particularly for minor facilities, and of discrepancies between
state databases and PCS; however, EPA's data clean-up over the past five years has
significantly improved data quality. PMOS (and its precursor, E-PIFT) has enabled EPA
to report on inventories and status of non-storm water facilities covered by NPDES
general permits, but the data are not as comprehensive as those tracked in PCS. In
addition, to date, there has been no national-level data system to track permit issuance
and expiration status of facilities covered by stormwater general permits. In 2008, OWM
is planning to improve PMOS to enable tracking of stormwater general permits and
facilities covered under them.
Error Estimate: We believe that the permit renewal backlog data for major facilities is
accurate within 2 percent based on input from EPA's Regional offices and states through
a quarterly independent verification. For minor facilities, however, the confidence
interval is less precise and probably overestimates the permit renewal backlog for minor
facilities by 5 percent based on anecdotal information from EPA's Regional offices and
states.
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters has been providing contractor
assistance to improve the data quality in PCS and will continue to do so. The new
modernized ICIS-NPDES was rolled out in June 2006, with twenty-eight states and
several territories now using the system. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will
improve the quality of data needed to manage the NPDES program.
References:
Information for PCS and ICIS-NPDES is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended
(program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are derived using different methods for
industries subject to effluent guidelines, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs),
municipal storm water and construction storm water (industrial storm water is not
included nor are reductions from water quality based effluent limits). The values derived
from these methods are summed to obtain the total pollutant load reductions achieved
under the surface water program.7
o
To calculate the program assessment efficiency measure, the annual cumulative
pollutant reductions are divided by the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA
Surface Water Program (SWP), grants to States under Clean Water Act (CWA) section
106, plus State 'match' dollars, annually. SWP and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled
from EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are
reported to EPA by States.
Data Sources: For industry sectors subject to effluent guidelines, estimated loading
reductions are taken from reductions estimated in the Technical Development Document
(TDD) when the effluent guideline is developed. The common components for such
analyses include wastewater sampling, data collection from the regulated industry, and
some amount of estimation or modeling. TDDs are available for: Pulp & Paper,
Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment,
Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing, Offshore Oil & Gas,
Coastal Oil & Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations, Meat and Poultry, Metal Products and Machinery, Aquaculture. States and
EPA's Regional offices enter data into PCS and ICIS.
7 Beginning in 2008, the values for Phase I municipal stromwater and construction stormwater were added
and back-filled to 2002. POTW values were updated and back-filled based on the 2004 CWNS.
8 The method of calculating the denominator was changed in 2008 to reflect total annual dollars, rather
than cumulative dollars.
-------
For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), trend data is taken from a detailed
analysis for BOD and TSS loadings from POTWs in "Progress in Water Quality: An
Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment," USEPA,
June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-008. The report provides flow estimates, loading estimates
and a distribution of treatment class for every 2 to 4 years from 1968 through 1996. In
addition, the report uses data from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) to
provide projections for 2016. EPA has also prepared a "2004 Update to Progress in
Water Quality" that uses data from the 2004 CWNS to provide flow and loading
estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2025.
For Municipal Stormwater, estimates were derived from EPA models of the volume of
storm water discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) developed
as part of a 1997 EPA draft report. The methodology and results of the 1997 draft report
are described in "Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule", EPA,
October 1999.9
Estimates of the sediment load present in Construction Stormwater is derived using a
model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The model uses the construction
site version of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Uncontrolled (i.e.
prior to implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)) and controlled (i.e. after
the implementation of BMPs) sediment loadings were estimated for 15 climatic regions
with three site sizes (one, three, and five acres), three soil erodability levels (low,
medium, and high), three slopes (3%, 7%, and 12%), and various BMP combinations.
The methodology and results are described in "Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II
Storm Water Rule." As EPA develops the new Construction and Development
Rulemaking, new and better sources of data may be developed that may help to refine
this calculation.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) loadings are estimated based on data obtained from
the Clean Watershed Needs Survey and from the "Report to Congress on the Impacts and
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows." States and
EPA's Regional offices provide data for the CSO Report to Congress and the Clean
Watershed Needs Survey.
Data for the program assessment denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to
the EPA Surface Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data become
available. EPA Surface Water Program funds and CWA Section 106 budget are initially
based on the President's Budget until a final budget is adopted; it is then pulled from
EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are
reported to EPA by States; where updated data is not available, the last year of confirmed
data is carried forward.
9 Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, Oct. 1, 1999, US EPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes or
http://cfpub.epa. gov/npdes/pkeyword.cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA uses the spreadsheet described above to
estimate loadings. The data are aggregated across different sources to determine loading
reductions at the national level. Loadings appear to be the best surrogate for determining
the environmental impacts of point sources. Pollutant load reductions, along with some
of the water quality improvement measures, tell the story about environmental outcomes.
Pollutant reductions per dollar spent provides a snapshot of the effectiveness and
efficiency of the surface water program, and comparing this over time helps to delineate a
trend.
QA/QC Procedures: The loadings spreadsheets are based on information from
rulemakings and policies that have undergone extensive review. The effluent guidelines
follow EPA quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: The methodology for this measure was submitted for review
during the program assessment process.
Data Limitations: Loadings data must be modeled rather than measured as there is
inconsistent and poor data quality in the PCS data base with respect to flow and discharge
monitoring, including missing data for minor facilities which has not been required to be
entered. Neither monitoring nor flow data are required for certain categories of general
permits. The Agency, therefore, is not able to measure actual loadings reductions for all
of the approximately 550,000 facilities that fall under the NPDES program. As a result,
loadings estimates are based upon models.
When the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is issued, the quality and quantity of Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data is expected to improve. This will enable development of
improved methods for estimating and validating loading reductions.
Error Estimate: At this time we are unable to estimate error due to the lack of actual
national level data to compare to estimates based on models.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to evaluate and explore improved
methods for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide from all sources.
References:
Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 [Electronic data base]. (2000). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
"Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule." (1999). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management]. Available
at:
http://cfpub. epa.gov/npdes/pkeyword. cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0
-------
Effluent guidelines development documents are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide.
Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/water/soft.html
SWP program assessment Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet].
Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater
Management].
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF (program assessment annual
measure)
• CWSRF long-term revolving level
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information
Management
System (NIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported
once yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NEVIS are the units of
performance. These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance
with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual
memoranda. A generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of
Data for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System, July 1, 200X through June 30, 200X."
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrfin individual state reports. EPA's
headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through
the appropriate EPA regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "NEVIS Analysis"
provides detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during annual
EPA regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems which might affect
the performance measure, biennial reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight
of state revolving funds and, annual reviews by EPA's regional offices of their states'
revolving funds operations.
-------
State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent
auditors or by the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits
are incorporated into EPA headquarters' financial management system.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states
submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NEVIS database by
typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through
data testing performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying
interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been virtually
eliminated as a result of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions
are publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf. There is typically a
lag of approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the
NEVIS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.
Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual
performance (relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two
years later, have been accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2 percentage
points.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1996. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.
References:
State performance data as shown in NEVIS are available by state at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28,
2001) addresses the quality of data in NEVIS. Not publicly available.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided (program assessment efficiency measure)
• Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Databases: Clean Water State Revolving Fund Benefits Reporting (CBR)
Database
CBR contains state-by-state data on the environmental benefits achieved by each loan
made by the 51 state CWSRFs. CBR is a new database and therefore does not contain
data on all CWSRF loans since the inception of the program. CBR contains complete
data on all loans made from capitalization grants received after January 1, 2005. Some
states have chosen to report the environmental benefits of loans made from earlier
-------
capitalization grants. Data is entered into CBR by states on a rolling basis; however,
states must enter all loans for a given fiscal year by the end of the state fiscal year. As of
July 2008, the environmental benefits of $15.8 billion in CWSRF assistance had been
reported in the CBR.
CBR contains general information about each loan, including borrower, loan execution
date, loan amount, repayment period and interest rate. Data on the environmental
benefits of each loan include population served, wastewater volume, needs categories
addressed, discharge information (i.e. ocean, surface water, groundwater, etc), permit
type/number (if applicable), affected waterbody name and ID number, and affected
waterbody status (impaired or meeting standards). CBR also collects information on
whether each loan helps a system to achieve or maintain compliance, and whether it
contributes to water quality improvement or maintenance. The designated uses of the
waterbody are identified, as well as whether the loan contributes to protection or
restoration of each designated use.
Data Sources: State regulatory agency personnel report and enter data into the CBR
database on a rolling basis, based on state fiscal year.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into CBR directly represent the
units of performance for the performance measure. Data collected in the CBR database is
suitable for calculating these performance and efficiency measures.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional offices are responsible for assuring state personnel
enter all data by the end of the state fiscal year. States receive data entry guidance from
EPA headquarters in the form of data definitions, available online at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right
corner of the screen.
Data Quality Review: Quarterly checks of the data are performed by EPA's contractor
to ensure that states are entering data in a manner consistent with data definitions.
Headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states.
Data Limitations: Erroneous data can be introduced into the CBR database by
typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through
data testing performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying
interpretations of information requested for specific data fields are minimized as a result
of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. Data is entered into the system on a
rolling basis due to variations in state fiscal years. This new database has been in
operation for approximately one year. As a result, comprehensive data is not available
for all states for years prior to 2005.
Error Estimate: As this is a new database, an error estimate is not available at this time.
New & Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 2005. Data
fields are changed or added as needed.
-------
References:
Definitions of data requested for each data field in the CBR database are available at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right
corner of the screen.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water
supply and wastewater disposal, (program assessment measure)
• Number of homes that received improved service per $1,000,000 of State and
Federal funding, (program assessment efficiency measure)
• Percent of project federal funds expended on time within the anticipated
project construction schedule set forth in the Management Control Policy
(program assessment efficiency measure)
• Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation
• Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water
• Percent of Alaska population served by public drinking water systems in
compliance with SDWA regulatory requirements
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), managed
by the Indian Health Service (MS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering
(OEHE), Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC). This database has been
modified to include information on water and wastewater projects in rural Alaska
communities and Alaska Native Villages (ANVs). This modified database is utilized to
establish funding priorities for all federal funds identified for water and wastewater
infrastructure in rural Alaska including the ANV program.
Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub-data systems, the
Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: The SDS is an inventory of sanitation
deficiencies for Indian and rural Alaska homes, ANVs and communities. It is updated
annually. The identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the
most common of which follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members, community members and other
Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives
(CHRs) nurses, State of Alaska IHS or tribal heath staff
• PWSS Sanitary Surveys
• Tribal Master Plans for Development
• Telephone Surveys
• Feasibility Studies
-------
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and
obtain accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian
homes within the communities must be consistent among the various methods cited
above. If a field visit cannot be made, it is highly recommended that more than one
method be used to determine sanitation deficiencies to increase the accuracy and establish
greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and
reporting tool. The PDS supports the annual calculation of the program efficiency
measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality
performance measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS data
undergo a series of quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS and the State
of Alaska.
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data undergo a series of highly organized reviews by
experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district, State of Alaska and IHS area personnel. The
data quality review consists of performing a number of established data queries and
reports, which identify errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top SDS projects
and corresponding community deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed against their
budgets. Detailed cost estimates are required for the review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The higher-level projects (those with the possibility of funding prior to
the next update) must be developed to allow for program implementation in an organized,
effective and efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top 20%) must have cost estimates
within 10% of the actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web-based application and therefore
allows data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and modified as
program requirements are identified. PDS has been modified to meet 40CFR31.40
reporting requirements. In 2009 the STARS application will undergo standard ongoing
support and updates to maintain database integrity, efficiency, and accuracy.
References:
Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http ://www. dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003. cfm
Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies
for Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
-------
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites that will have
achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's
management plan and measured through on-site monitoring programs.)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are entered into EPA's Annual
Commitment System (ACS) database by those EPA Regional offices (Regions)
responsible for the management and oversight of dredged material ocean dumping sites.
This performance measure will be tracked on an annual basis as a management tool for
the ocean dumping program.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices are responsible for data collection and
management. Under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), EPA Regions may designate ocean sites for the disposal of dredged material.
The Act requires that each site have a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP),
which includes, but is not limited to, a baseline assessment of the site, a consideration of
anticipated use, a monitoring program, and site management conditions or practices that
are necessary for protection of the aquatic environment. Each SMMP is unique to the
dump site and is developed with the opportunity for stakeholder input. Based on the
requirements of each SMMP, the responsible Regions may conduct monitoring surveys
of the dump sites to determine benthic impacts, spatial distribution of dredged material,
characterize physical changes to the seafloor resulting from disposal, pH, turbidity, and
other water quality indicators. Utilizing sampling results (as necessary), EPA Regions
determine if a site is achieving environmentally acceptable conditions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The required monitoring and environmentally
acceptable conditions are reflected in the SMMP for each ocean dumping site, as a result
the survey/sampling methodologies and assumptions will be site-specific. However, if a
Region utilizes EPA's Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, established procedures for use
of the equipment and handling samples on the OSV Bold must be followed. In addition,
for each survey the Region is required to submit to Headquarters a survey plan that
presents types of sampling techniques, including equipment used, and how data are
recorded. These data are highly suitable for tracking the performance of this measure, as
they are collected for the specific purpose of determining the environmental conditions of
the dredged material ocean dump sites. The periodicity of monitoring is determined by
the SMMP, and is suitable for tracking this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Regions must develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP),
as prescribed by their regional quality assurance procedures, when collecting data at an
ocean dumping site. These QAPPs are also submitted to Headquarters when a Region
utilizes the OSV Bold for a sampling survey. The QAPP outlines the procedures for
collection methods, use of analytical equipment, analytical methods, quality control, and
documentation and records.
-------
Data Quality Reviews: Regions must conduct data quality reviews as determined by
their quality assurance procedures and included in their QAPPs.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Reporting in FY 2007 and FY 2008 and FY 2009 did
not indicate that any improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support
the measure were needed.
References: The Annual Commitment System is an internal EPA database that is a
component of the Agency's Budget Automation System (BAS). EPA's Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division has prepared a template for the Regions to use when
preparing survey plans. QAPPs for those Regions responsible for ocean dumping sites
may be found at the following internet sites:
EPA Region 1 -http://www.epa.gov/ne/lab/qa/pdfs/QAPPProgram.pdf
EPA Region 2 - http://www.epa.gov/region2/qa/documents.htm#qag
EPA Region 3 - http://www.epa.gov/quality/qmps.html
EPA Region 4 - http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp.html
EPA Region 6 - http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/qa/qatools.htm
EPA Region 9 - http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/qaprp_guidance3.pdf
EPA Region 10 - http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-fmal.pdf
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of planned risk management research products delivered to
support EPA's Office of Water, Regions, water utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage public health risks associated with exposure to
drinking water, implement effective safeguards on the quality and
availability of surface and underground sources of drinking water, improve
the water infrastructure, and establish health-based measures of program
effectiveness, (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned methodologies, data, and tools delivered in support of
EPA's Office of Water and other key stakeholders needs for developing
health risk assessments, producing regulatory decisions, implementing new
and revised rules, and achieving simultaneous compliance under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the protection of
human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic
systems and the beneficial use of biosolid long-term goal (program
assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the diagnostics and
forecasting techniques for the protection of human health and ecosystems as
-------
related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of
biosolids long-term goal (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 1) restore impaired
aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired systems, 3) provide human health
risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of biosolids, and
4) forecast the ecologic, economic, and human health benefits of alternative
approaches to attaining water quality standards (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of
key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones
and outputs be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each
fiscal year. Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD
management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones
and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and
independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject
to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Drinking Water Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/dw.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007).
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007).
Drinking Water Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
-------
Water Quality Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of peer-reviewed publications over FTE (efficiency measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are derived from a self-produced list of program publications and
financial records for FTE employees.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The universe of peer-reviewed publications
includes 1) journal articles, 2) books and book chapters, and 3) EPA reports, where at
least one EPA author is listed or where the publication is the result of an EPA grant. If a
publication includes more than one EPA author, that publication is counted only once.
Materials submitted for publication but not yet published are not included. FTE are actual
program full time equivalents.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: All publications included in the data are peer reviewed according
to EPA's Peer Review Handbook (3rd Edition).
Data Limitations: FTE data do not include extramurally-funded contributors.
Additionally, data do not capture the quality or impact of the research publications.
However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are used to
measure research quality and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: EPA's Peer Review Handbook, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf (last
accessed on July 20, 2007)
Water Quality Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (program assessment
efficiency measure)
-------
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned
and actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent
of planned program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the
difference between planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically,
determining the difference between what the program actually spent and what it intended
to spent), and 3) dividing the difference between planned and actual performance by the
difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and
estimated costs when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects
only the key program outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a
program. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated,
though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Water Quality Research Program program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
Drinking Water Research Program Assessment, available
at:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/l 0004371.2005.html
(last accessed August 21, 2008)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of WQRP program publications rated as highly cited papers
(program assessment measure).
• Percentage of WQRP publications in high impact journals, (program
assessment measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are
conducted to obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are
-------
completed using Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI provides access to a unique and comprehensive
compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data derived
from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI
employs both total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals
gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a
recognized authority for evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that
provide a systematic, objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their
impact and influence in the global research community. The two key measures used in
this analysis to assess the journals in which a program's papers are published are the
Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency
with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The
Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially when compared
to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other
key agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development's Water Quality Research Program, available at:
http://es. epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/wq_bibliometri c_2005_021308.html
(last accessed on Aug 21, 2008)
-------
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Data are provided by EPA and the Department of Commerce.
Data Source: National estimates for municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling are
developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the
Department of Commerce and described in the EPA report titled "Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States." The Department of Commerce collects
materials production and consumption data from various industries.
Additional Agency performance data include: total pounds recycled in a year attributable
to EPA FTE and contract funds as reported in EPA's Annual Commitment System
(ACS), recycling achievements in EPA's recycling partnership programs, as well as the
total cost to the Agency including annual recycling dollars, and FTE for HQ and the
Regions.
Methods and Assumptions: Data on domestic production of materials and products are
compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce sources are used,
where available; but in several instances more detailed information on production of
goods by end-use is available from trade associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent
historical data series for each product and/or material. Data on average product lifetimes
are used to adjust the data series. These estimates and calculations result in material-by-
material and product-by product estimates of MSW generation, recovery, and discards.
EPA's 2011 measure focuses on the total pounds of recycling that EPA influences in the
United States. EPA helps to increase the amount of materials recycled through its
educational materials, technical support, direct assistance, and through recycling
partnership programs.
EPA influences national recycling based on its investment, over many years, in the
development and implementation of voluntary programs, as well as information tools, to
motivate State and local government, business, manufacturers, and citizens to reduce the
municipal solid waste generated and increase recycling. The level of national recycling is
published biennially in the report "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States." The
current report describes the municipal solid waste stream based on data collected yearly
from 1960 through 2006.
Many State and local governments, industry and citizen groups use EPA materials to
develop their recycling programs. The Agency also has a significant impact on national
recycling rates through its participation in major conferences, national and trade press
-------
efforts, and convening summits and focus groups. Additionally, EPA meets with national
organizations such as the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, National Recycling Coalition, and Solid Waste Association of North America
to promote recycling.
The second component of the 2011 measure is comprised of EPA's annual commitments
as tracked in the ACS database. In addition to efforts in support of the national recycling
measure, the Agency will track and report accomplishments based on results achieved
from grants, FTE-only opportunities, work assignments (if applicable), and EPA Region-
specific partners.
The final component of the 2011 measure is partnership attribution. EPA's WasteWise
program provides program design assistance, implementation assistance, networking
opportunities, helpline and listserve support, and recognition opportunities to partners
enrolled in the program. The cumulative effect and investment in voluntary partnerships
contribute to the increase in the national recycling rate. EPA currently claims 25% of
recycling and source reduction achievement reported by partners. As part of their
enrollment in the WasteWise program, partners submit a baseline waste reduction to use
as a point of comparison to measure EPA's influence.
The 2011 MSW measure focuses on EPA costs, both extramural dollars and FTE. By
focusing on the Agency's specific contributions to recycling, this will more accurately
represent EPA's efficiency.
Suitability: The report, including the baseline numbers, annual rates of recycling and per
capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted by solid waste management
practitioners.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the
Department of Commerce's internal procedures and systems. The report prepared by the
Agency, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States," is reviewed
by a number of experts for accuracy and soundness.
EPA's budget information and partnership programs data are subject to EPA's QA/QC
procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and
annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a
series of models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical
accounting of municipal solid waste generated or recycled.
In addition, the measure is contingent upon collection of accurate and up-to-date
information from the recycling partnership programs.
-------
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The measure represents EPA's accomplishments in
promoting recycling.
References:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008," Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf (accessed December
22, 2009).
Waste News. "Municipal Recycling Survey". Grain Communications, Inc. 2009.
Available annually from wasterecyclingnews.com. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com
(accessed December 22, 2009)..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community
Record-Setters Show How". Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-530-
F-99-017, October 1999. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/downloads/f99017.pdf
(accessed December 22, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Evaluation of Diversion and Costs for Select
Drop-Off Recycling Programs". Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-R-95-
109, June 1995. http://www.epa.gov/nscep (accessed December 22, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are mainly entered by the states and can be entered directly into
RCRAInfo, although some choose to use a different program and then "translate" the
information into RCRAInfo. Supporting documentation and reference materials are
maintained in Regional and state files.
Methods and Assumptions: RCRAInfo, the national database which supports EPA's
RCRA program, contains information on entities (genetically referred to as "handlers")
engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the
portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several
different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
-------
Suitability: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data quality
related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national
components. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at
https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation
of data.
QA/QC Procedures: Even with the increasing emphasis on data quality, with roughly
10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more than one unit), we hear of data
problems with some facilities every year, particularly with the older inactive facilities.
When we hear of these issues, we work with the EPA Regional offices to see that they get
resolved. It may be necessary to make a few adjustments as data issues are identified.
Determination of whether or not the facility has approved controls in place is based
primarily on the legal and operating status codes for each unit. Each year since 1999, in
discussions with Regional offices and states, EPA has highlighted the need to keep the
data that support the GPRA permitting goal current. RCRAInfo is the sole repository for
this information and is a focal point for planning from the local to national level.
Accomplishment of updated controls is based on the permit expiration date code and
other related codes. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. The
most recent version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), has many added components that will
help the user identify errors in the system (Example: data gap report).
Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized
state personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains
enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites. This non-
sensitive information is supplied from RCRAInfo to Envirofacts.
Data Quality Reviews: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's
Information
System Are Limited (AEVID-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information
System reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the
states in managing their hazardous waste programs. Those recommendations coincided
with ongoing internal efforts to improve the definitions of data collected, and ensure that
data collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo,
the current national database, has evolved in part as a response to this report. The
"Permitting and Corrective Action Program Area Analysis" was the primary vehicle for
the improvements made in the December 2008 release (V4).
Data Limitations: The authorized states have ownership of their data and EPA has to
rely on them to make changes. The data that determine if a facility has met its permit
requirements are prioritized in update efforts. Basic site data may become out-of-date
because RCRA does not mandate the notification of all information changes.
Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by their ID numbers and those should not change
even during ownership changes (RCRA Subtitle C
-------
EPA Identification Number, Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance, March 21, 2005).
The baselines are composed of facilities that can have multiple units. These units may
consolidate, split or undergo other activities that cause the number of units to change. We
aim to have a static baseline for the total facilities tracked for GPRA, but there may be
occasions where we would need to make minor baseline modifications. The larger
permitting universe is carried over from one Strategic Plan to the next with minor
changes (for instance, facilities referred to Superfund are removed, or facilities never
regulated are removed; facilities that applied for a permit within the last strategic cycle
are added). This universe is composed of facilities that were subject to permits as of 10-1-
1997 and subsequent years. EPA plans to update the list of units that need "updated
controls" after the end of each Strategic Plan cycle. Those facilities that need updated
controls are a smaller set within the larger GPRA permitting universe tracked for
strategic and annual goals.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently ORCR does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: New data quality tools, tracking, and reporting
capabilities were added with V4 of RCRAInfo, deployed in December 2008. RCRAInfo
allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste
handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and compliance history. The system
also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste by large quantity
generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for Federal,
state and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and states have the option to use commercial off-the-shelf software to develop
reports from database tables.
References:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
RCRAInfo website with documentation and data
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/index.html (accessed December 22, 2009).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's
Information System Are Limited". AEVID-95-167, August 22, 1995.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf (accessed December 22, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Permitting and Corrective Action Program
Area Analysis". WIN/INFORMED Executive Steering Committee, July 28, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "RCRA Subtitle C EPA Identification Number,
Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance". March 21, 2005
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer
each year
-------
• 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
• Number of annual confirmed UST releases per Federal, state, and territorial
costs (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Designated state agencies individually maintain records for
reporting state program accomplishments. A new oracle web-based system is being
developed, in conjunction with OSWER's Performance Assessment Tool, for the regions,
states and territories to enter their data for these performance measures.
Data Source: The data suppliers are the states and territories who sign Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) prevention assistance agreements and State and
Tribal Assistance Grants with EPA. Each EPA regional office manages their own states'
assistance agreements. Designated state agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to
the EPA Regional offices. For the Program Assessment Efficiency Performance
Measure, OUST will estimate the value of this efficiency measure based on data that
EPA and state agencies currently collect and maintain. The data includes the states'
semi-annual activity reports, which track the number of releases confirmed each year and
the number of active underground storage tanks; funding for leak prevention and
matching expenditure of 25 percent for every dollar of leak prevention funding the states
receive; and EPA's prevention program administration costs, such as salary, travel
expenses, contracts and working capital funds.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA/OUST will oversee the use of the QA/QC checklist, which
identifies the QA/QC process that regional program managers should follow for each
state's data submission. Regions complete the QA/QC checklist, sign it and submit it to
EPA/OUST. The QA/QC checklist will be incorporated into the web-based system.
Data Quality Review: EPA's regional grants project officers and program managers
provide first-level data quality reviews and oversight of the recipients' program
performance measure results. EPA/OUST provides second-level data quality reviews of
all data.
Data Limitations: For the semi-annual activity report, percentages reported are
sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data. Data quality depends
on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
-------
References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year
2009 - as of September 30, 2009, dated December 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_09_34.pdf. (accessed December 29, 2009)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Increase in the percentage of coal combustion product ash that is used
instead of disposed
Performance Database: Data to support this measure are provided by the Department of
Energy and American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). EPA collects data on generation
of materials (Toxic Release Inventory), but it does not maintain a database for utilization.
Data Source: The ACAA conducts an annual voluntary survey on coal combustion
products (CCP) generation and recycling practices of the utility industry. Responders
typically represent approximately 35-50% of the electricity generating capacity of the
United States. The ACAA survey information is compared to the other sources of
utilization data, including the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA)
Form 923 (Formerly 767) and other publicly available trade association data.
Methods and Assumptions: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires
extrapolation and integration with several sources of data. TRI data does not track end-
use and does not require reporting of materials by their utilization.
Suitability: The coal combustion product recycling rate is defined as tons of CCPs
recycled divided by tons of CCPs generated nationally by coal-fired electric utilities. The
goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for the generation and use of CCPSs.
These data are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of beneficial use programs and
activities.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers
reported on EIA 923 are provided by the Department of Energy's internal procedures and
systems. Data on utilization are reviewed by EPA and CCP industry experts for accuracy.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: The ACAA annual survey data are considered to be of good to
excellent quality on the national level. While the ACAA survey is voluntary and covers
only a portion of the industry, the DOE data enable accurate extrapolation based on well
characterized electricity generating capacity. Data limitations are associated with some
States and regions which may be under-represented in the survey.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The current DOE Form 923 replaced the Form 767 in
2007, which necessitated adjustments in completing the ACAA survey. The ACAA
survey data are now considered consistent with past years. No new data sources or
collection practices are contemplated at this time.
References: American Coal Ash Association. "ACAA 2008 CCP Survey 2009."
http://www.acaa-usa.org/ (accessed December 22, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
* Number of facilities with new or updated controls per million dollars of
program cost (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program and provides
information on facilities under control.
Costs by the permittee are estimated through the annual cost estimates contained in the
Information Collection Requests (ICR) supporting statements relevant to the RCRA Base
Program. ICRs are contained in the Federal Docket Management System. Base program
appropriation information is maintained in the Budget Automation System (BAS).
Data Source: The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) develops
ICRs and ensures they have active ICRs approved by the OMB for all of their RCRA
permitting and base program information collection activities. BAS automates EPA's
budget processes, including planning, budgeting, execution, and reporting. Budget data is
entered at a general level by offices and regions or by the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO).
Methods and Assumptions:
Numerator - Facilities with approved or updated controls as described above; facilities
under control is an outcome based measure as permits or similar mechanisms are not
issued until facilities have met standards or permit conditions that are based on human
health or environmental standards. Examples include sites cleaned up to a protective
level; any groundwater releases controlled so no further attenuation is occurring; any
remaining waste safely removed or capped (isolated); and long term controls in place to
protect people and the environment at the site, if any contamination remains. An updated
control, such as a permit renewal, indicates that the facility has upgraded its operations to
ensure continued safe operation, minimizing the potential for releases and accidents.
Denominator - The denominator is the sum of two costs. The first is permitting costs
based on Information Collection Requests for the base RCRA program. The costs will
take into account recent rulemakings which impact program expenditures
-------
The second program cost in the denominator is the input of a three year rolling average
appropriation for Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and State and Tribal
Assitance Grant (STAG) program. Corrective action programs costs will not be included
but will be addressed in a separate efficiency measure. A rolling average of
appropriations is more appropriate since some of the facility controls depend upon past
resources. Issuance time for a permit, for example, can exceed one year with public
hearings and appeals. The cumulative number of facilities with controls in place is
appropriate (rather than a single year's increment) because the appropriations are used to
maintain facilities that already have controls in place (e.g. inspections and permit
renewals) as well as to extend the number of facilities with controls.
Suitability: EPA's BAS is the primary source for budget formulation data and is
considered definitive for all Agency users. RCRAInfo is also considered to be a
definitive source of RCRA facility information, and much of the data contained in
RCRAInfo is available nowhere else. The data are considered accurate at the regional
and national levels.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of the ICR costs is based on internal and external review
of the data. BAS data undergoes quality assurance and data quality review through the
Chief Financial Officer.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: The data sources for the program costs identified in the denominator
of the measure include all of the RCRA base program appropriations (e.g. RCRA Subtitle
D program implementation) and not just costs for permitting. Accordingly, the measure
cannot be compared with other similar government programs.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently ORCR does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to improve the data or methodology
have been identified.
References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental
Information. Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). http://www.regulations.gov
(accessed December 22, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Budget
Automation System. Internal agency operating system on EPA intranet, (accessed
December 22, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste management plan
-------
Performance Database: EPA Regions have internal data systems which are appropriate
for the size of the data set. As of October 2009, a nationwide total of 94 tribal integrated
waste management plans have been counted in EPA's Annual Commitment System.
Data Source: EPA Regional offices enter data into their internal data systems.
Methods and Assumptions: Regional data systems reflect EPA Regional offices'
evaluations of tribal integrated waste management plans and do not require any other data
elements or sources. The data systems are considered to be appropriate for the minimal
complexity and small size of the data set.
Suitability: The data are reviewed by EPA for data quality and periodic adjustments are
made during these reviews. The data are considered to be accurate on a regional and
national scale.
QA/QC: The internal EPA data set housing the specific solid waste management plans
for each tribe is managed by each regional office and is under the control of each region.
Also, because the data are very small in size on a region by region basis, it can be
managed efficiently by each regional office and is considered to be accurate.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: EPA Regions have ownership of this data. There are no other
limitations.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: During FY 2011, EPA will be compiling the regional
data into a spreadsheet for national tracking purposes.
References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Five Elements of a Tribal
Integrated Waste Management Plan". Memorandum from Matt Hale, Director, Office of
Solid Waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Oc994248c239947e85256d090071175f/E7661F3537
91AD71852573780050876E/$file/14776.pdf (accessed December 14, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded dumps in Indian Country or
other tribal lands
Performance Database: Indian Health Service's Web Sanitation Tracking and
Reporting System (w/STARS) database. This database is a subset of the Operation and
Maintenance Data System (OMDS).
-------
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices, in collaboration with IHS, report the performance
data continually to the w/STARS database. The database is restricted to personnel who
have specific passwords.
Methods and Assumptions: The w/STARS database contains information regarding the
location, composition, use status, proximity to population, and other related dump data.
Reports generated for EPA from the database focus on the status of the open dumps.
Suitability: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IHS for data quality. The data are
considered to be accurate on a national scale.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control relate to internal procedures
for the IHS w/STARS reporting process. Access to the data system is restricted to
password holders. Data generated by tribal government staff is verified and then entered
by EPA or fflS staff.
Data Quality Review: N/A.
Data Limitations: The w/STARS database contains data pertaining to the open dumps
located on the lands of the 572 federal recognized tribes. EPA is aware that new open
dumps may be created on these lands. While EPA has access to the database, IHS has
ownership of the database.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA Regional offices and IHS staff are in the process
of a significant data collection effort to update the universe of known open dumps. The
initial data collection was completed in December 2009. During the past several years,
IHS, in collaboration with EPA, customized the w/STARS database to better meet EPA
needs and requirements. This effort is currently ongoing.
References: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Indian Health Service.
w/STARS data are available from the IHS website, http://www.ihs.gov (accessed
December 14. 2009).
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of all SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant which will be brought
into compliance (program assessment measure)
• Percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant which will be brought
into compliance (program assessment measure)
-------
• Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent
annually on prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP)
facilities (program efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) in BAS is the
database for the number of inspections/exercises at SPCC and FRP facilities. Using data
submitted directly by Regional staff as well as data in ACS, Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) tracks in a spreadsheet national information about Regional
activities at FRP facilities. Data about gallons of oil spilled are maintained in a National
Response Center (NRC) database that reflects information reported to the NRC by those
responsible for individual oil spills. Prevention and preparedness expenditures are
tracked in the Agency's financial database. EPA will also be using its in-house
SPCC/FRP Database to pull data related to inspected facilities to assist measurement
tracking.
Data Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at FRP and SPCC facilities are
provided by Regional staff. Data concerning gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters are
gathered from the publicly available National Response Center database. Data about
program expenditures are extracted by EPA HQ from the Agency's financial database.
Methods and Assumptions: The spill/exercise data are entered by Regional staff
experienced in data entry. In every case, direct data (rather than surrogates open to
interpretation) are entered. The assumption for the oil program's compliance measures is
that the universe will consist of all facilities that were found to be non-compliant during
the course of the year. Each year thereafter, this number and the number of facilities that
were brought into compliance will be determined on a cumulative basis, and the
percentage calculated accordingly. The baseline for these new measures will be
established during FY 2009.
Suitability: For the new Strategic Plan, EPA is proposing a focus on bringing SPCC and
FRP facilities into compliance. This will necessitate national consistency in targeting
inspections as well as the process to bring non-compliant facilities into compliance.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to
identify potential errors.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA regularly reviews recent data, comparing them to data
gathered in the past at similar times of year and in the same Regions. Any questionable
data are verified by direct contact with the Regional staff responsible for providing the
data.
Data Limitations: The NRC data will reflect the extent to which those responsible for oil
spills accurately report them to the NRC.
Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions should be relatively free of error. There
may be some error in the NRC data, due to the fact that some spills might not be reported
-------
and/or some spills might be reported by more than one person. NRC and EPA
procedures should identify multiple reports of the same spill, but it is not usually possible
to identify an unreported spill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated
system, to manage the various data.
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Score on Core NAR evaluation
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from
evaluations from each of the 10 Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters are tabulated
and stored using standard software (e.g., Word, Excel).
Data Source: The Core National Approach to Response (NAR) measures EPA's
readiness for multiple significant events. Data are collected through detailed surveys of
all Regional programs, EPA special teams and HQ offices. The process will include
interviews with personnel and managers in each program office.
While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological
incidents, improvement in the homeland security readiness measure will demonstrate an
increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The FY 2010
Core NAR target is to improve homeland security readiness by 5 points from the FY
2009 baseline performance.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To ensure that the goals of the NAR are being
met, EPA has developed a Core NAR evaluation. (The National Approach to Response is
an Agency wide mechanism to address effective evaluation of resources.) The Core NAR
evaluation criteria measures the Agency's readiness to respond to multiple, nationally
significant events. EPA Headquarters, Regions, and Special Teams are evaluated during
this process. The evaluation team consists of managers and staff from Headquarters,
including contractor support. Once all of the evaluations are complete, a national score
will be calculated based on average scores.
QA/QC Procedures: To be developed
Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods and
Assumptions) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will
be conducted after the data have been analyzed to ensure that the scores are consistent
with the data and program information. There currently is no specific database that has
been developed to collect, store, and manage the data.
-------
Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database
system to collect and manage the data. Standard software packages (word processing,
spreadsheets) are used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop the
accompanying readiness scores. There is also the possibility of subjective interpretation
of data.
Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be small for the
following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and
reviewed extensively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional managers and staff; the data
will be collected by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across all
reviews plus an important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be
developed by a team looking across all ten Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters,
allowing for easier cross-checking and ensuring better consistency of data analysis and
identification of data quality gaps.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated
system to manage the data.
References: None.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Number of Superfund final assessment decisions completed (program
assessment measure)
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control (program
assessment measure)
• Number of Superfund sites with groundwater migration under control (program
assessment measure)
• Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed
(program assessment measure)
• Number of Superfund sites Ready for Anticipated Use Site-Wide.
• Human exposures under control per million dollars (program assessment
efficiency measure)
• Annual program dollars expended per Operable Unit (OU) completing cleanup
activities (Federal Facilities program assessment efficiency measure)
• PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC and UAO actions)
overseen by EPA. (program assessment measure)
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually (program assessment
measure)
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all remedies have completed
construction (program assessment measure)
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the final remedial decision for
contaminants at the site has been determined (program assessment measure)
• Number of Remedial Action Project Completions at Superfund NPL Sites
-------
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability System (CERCLIS) is used by the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information.
Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's Regional
offices enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis. The Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) is EPA's core financial management system.
Methods and Assumptions: Except for financial information, each performance
measure is a specific variable entered into CERCLIS following specific coding guidance
and corresponding supporting site-specific documentation.
IFMS contains records of all financial transactions (e.g., personnel, contracts, grants,
other) of Superfund appropriation resources, as distinguished by U.S. Treasury schedule
codes. The Site/Project field of the IFMS account number that is assigned to every
financial transaction identifies site-specific obligations. Total annual obligations include
current and prior year appropriated resources, excluding Office of Inspector General
(OIG) and Science and Technology transfers. Site-specific obligation data are derived
using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the IFMS account number.
"Projects" represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as
described in the Record of Decision. They are typically defined to address discrete
problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g.,
discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction).
A given remedy may contain multiple actions or projects depending on the nature of the
remedy selected
Suitability: The Superfund Program's performance measures for FY 2011 are used to
demonstrate program progress and reflect major site cleanup milestones from start (Final
Assessment Decision) to finish (Percentage of Sites Ready for Anticipated Use). Each
measure marks a significant step in ensuring human health and environment protection at
Superfund sites. OMB has accepted these measures for monitoring program performance
on an annual basis.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative
controls are in place: 1) Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI), the
program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report
Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are
calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to data users including
Regional Information Management Coordinators (EVICs), program personnel, data
owners, and data entry personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides (QRG), which are available
in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed instructions on data entry for
nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment
(SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget, plan, and
evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; 6) a historical
lockout feature in CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only
-------
by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a Change Log report, 7) the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Quality Management Plan;
and 8) Regional Data Entry Control Plans. Specific direction for these controls is
contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following
administrative control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental
Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive; 2) the
OSWER Quality Management Plan; 3) EPA IT standards; 4) Quality Assurance
Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and
maintained; and 5) EPA IT security policies. In addition, specific controls are in place
for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Reviews: Three audits, two by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the
other by Government Accountability Office (GAO), assessed the validity of the data in
CERCLIS. The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, concluded that the Agency
"has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the information that is reported,"
and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA provides regarding
construction completions." The GAO report, Superfund: Information on the Status of
Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimated that the cleanup status of
National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September 30, 1997, is
accurate for 95 percent of the sites. Another OIG audit, Information Technology -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002,
evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into
CERCLIS. The report provided 11 recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS
data quality. EPA has either implemented or continues to implement these
recommendations.
The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal process, to verify
data that supports the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual financial statements
and recommends several corrective actions. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer
indicates that corrective actions will be taken.
Data Limitations: The OIG audit, Information Technology - Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002 identified some
weaknesses. The Agency disagreed with the study design and report conclusions;
however, the report provided 11 recommendations on improving data quality with which
EPA concurred and either implemented or is implementing. The development and
implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data continues. This
process includes delineating data quality objectives for GPRA targets, program measures,
-------
and regional data. The Agency has begun reporting compliance with current data quality
objectives.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of
National Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites.
The OIG report, Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.
2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data
on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not adequately supported.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As a result of a modernization effort completed in
2004, CERCLIS has standards for data quality and each EPA Region's CERCLIS Data
Entry Control Plan, which identifies policies and procedures for data entry,and is
reviewed annually. EPA Headquarters has developed data quality audit reports and
SOPs, which address timeliness, completeness, and accuracy, and has provided these
reports to the Regions. Information developed and gathered in the modernization effort
is a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS. This redesign is
necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the Agency's mandated Enterprise
Architecture. The first steps in this effort involved the migration of all 10 Regional
databases and the Headquarters database into one single national database at the National
Computing Center in RTF and the migration of Superfund Document Management
System (SDMS) to RTF to improve efficiency and storage capacity. During this process
SDMS was linked to CERCLIS which enabled users to easily transition between
programmatic accomplishments as reported in CERCLIS and the actual document that
defines and describes the accomplishments. EPA Headquarters is now scoping the
requirements for an integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system, tentatively called the Superfund
Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS started in FY 2007 and will
continue through FY 2012.
SEMS will provide a common platform for major Superfund systems and future IT
development. It will be constructed in part using EPA IT enterprise architecture
principles and components. SEMS will provide a Superfund Program user gateway to
various IT systems and information collections.
In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new CERCLIS
Five-Year Review Module was released June 2006. In addition, a new CERCLIS
Reuse/Acreage Module was released in June 2007 to support two new performance
measures. During FY 2009, CERCLIS data fields are being reviewed with the
development of SEMS in mind. The enforcement module will be trimmed during FY
2010 to facilitate the data conversion which will be necessary to fully implement SEMS.
References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Performance and
Accountability Reports, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/index.htm (accessed December 30,
2009).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Accomplishment and Performance
Measures, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomplishments.htm (accessed December 30,
2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office -
Performance measures, http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/measures.htm (accessed
December 30, 2009)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Superfund
Construction Completion Reporting, E1SGF7_05_0102_8100030,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Information
Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, No. 2002-P-00016,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Superfund Information on the Status of Sites,
GAO/RCED-98-241", http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241 .pdf (accessed
December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, Superfund Program Implementation Manuals (SPIM),
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/guidance.htm (accessed July 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Respose,
"OSWER Quality Management Plan", http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf
(accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA
System Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5,
http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf (accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA IT
Standards, http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf (accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA's
Information Quality Guidelines, http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines
(accessed December 30, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA
EVI/IT Policies, http://intranet.epa.gov/oeiintra/imitpolicy/policies.htm (accessed July 30,
2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
-------
• Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under
control (program assessment measure)
• Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated
groundwater under control (program assessment measure)
• Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed
(program assessment measure)
• Number of final remedy components constructed at RCRA corrective action
facilities per federal, state and private sector costs, (program assessment
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
System (RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program and all
four corrective action performance measures.
Data Source: States and regions enter all data. With respect to meeting the human
exposures to toxins controlled and releases to groundwater controlled, a "yes," "no", or
"insufficient information" entry is made in the database. A separate entry is made in the
database to indicate the date of remedy construction. Supporting documentation and
reference materials are maintained in the Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices
and authorized states enter data on a continual basis. For the efficiency measure, federal
and state costs are assembled from their respective budgets. Private sector costs are
derived from Environmental Business Journal data.
Methods and Assumptions: RCRAInfo contains information on entities (genetically
referred to as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and management
activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous
waste. Within RCRAInfo, the Corrective Action Module tracks the status of facilities that
require, or may require, corrective actions, including information related to the four
measures outlined above. Performance measures are used to summarize and report on the
facility-wide environmental conditions at all RCRA Corrective Action Program's
facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA Corrective Action
Program's progress in dealing with immediate threats to human health and groundwater
resources. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of
simple questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination.
These questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA
Corrective Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999).
Lead regulators for the facility (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental
indicator determination, but facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the
evaluation by providing information on the current environmental conditions.
The remedy construction measure tracks the RCRA Corrective Action Program's
progress in moving sites towards final cleanup. Like with the environmental indicators
determination, the lead regulators for the facility select the remedy and determine when
the facility has completed construction of that remedy. Construction completions are
collected on both an area-wide and site-wide basis for sake of the efficiency measure.
-------
Suitability: States and regions generate the data and manage data quality related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are
correctly reflected by the data). EPA has provided guidance and training to states and
regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations.
Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state
personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains
enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.
QA/QC Procedures: Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces structural
controls that ensure that high-priority national components of the data are properly
entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line, provides
guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of data. Training on use of
RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of
systems changes and user needs. The latest version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), was
released in December 2008 and has many added components that will help the user
identify errors in the system.
Data Quality Reviews: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information
System (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html) reviewed
whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincided with ongoing internal
efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data
collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. EPA's Quality
Staff of the Office of Environmental Information conducted a quality systems audit in
December 2003. The audit found the corrective action program satisfactory.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified for the performance
measures. As discussed above, the performance measure determinations are made by the
authorized states and EPA Regions based on a series of standard questions and entered
directly into RCRAInfo. EPA Corrective Action sites are monitored on a facility-by-
facility basis and the QA/QC procedures identified above are in place to ensure data
validity. For the efficiency measure, private sector costs are not publicly available.
Estimates of these costs are derived from Environmental Business Journal data.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Resource Conversation and Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for
managing environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the
old data systems (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the
Biennial Reporting System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of
information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as
facility status, regulated activities, and compliance history. The system also captures
-------
detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and on
the waste management practices of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo
is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for federal, state and local
managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and using
commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.
References: U.S. Government Accounting Office Report to Congress. "Study to Identify
Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository
Library System", June 1996.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html (accessed December
22, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
» Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration, (program assessment measure)
* Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration in Indian country.
Performance Database: Designated state agencies individually maintain records for
reporting state program accomplishments. A new oracle web-based system is being
developed, in conjunction with OSWER's Performance Assessment Tool, for the regions,
states and territories to enter their data for these performance measures.
Data Source: The data suppliers are the states and territories who sign Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Corrective Action assistance agreements with EPA
and the regions who provide assistance to the Tribes. Each EPA regional office manages
their own states' assistance agreements. For the program assessment efficiency measure,
OUST will estimate the value of this efficiency measure based on data that EPA and state
agencies currently collect and maintain. Cleanup dollars are estimated from available
information reported to states and this total is recognized as incomplete given the lack of
publicly available information on private cleanup expenditures
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of confirmed releases
where cleanup has been initiated and where the state has determined that no further
actions are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment, includes
sites where post-closure monitoring is not necessary as long as site specific (e.g., risk
based) cleanup goals have been met. Site characterization, monitoring plans and site-
specific cleanup goals must be established and cleanup goals must be attained for sites
being remediated by natural attenuation to be counted in this category. (See
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/PMDefmitions.pdf.)
QA/QC Procedures: EPA/OUST will oversee the use of the QA/QC checklist, which
identifies the QA/QC process regional program managers should follow for each state's
data submission. Regions complete the QA/QC checklist, sign it and submit it to
EPA/OUST. The QA/QC checklist will be incorporated into the web-based system.
-------
Data Quality Review: EPA's regional grants project officers and regional program
managers provide first-level data quality reviews and oversight of their recipients'
program performance measure results. EPA/OUST provides second-level data quality
reviews of all data.
Data Limitations: Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state
records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: Web-based Oracle system accessed through EPA's
portal.
References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End of Fiscal Year
2009 - as of September 30, 2009, dated December 2009;
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_09_34.pdf (accessed on December 29, 2009)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Refer to DOJ, settle or write off 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases
for SF sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than
$200,000 and report value of costs recovered
• Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action
taken before the start of RA.
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is an automated, fully modernized EPA
system that is used to capture and report on all essential program and enforcement
performance information. CERCLIS is the Superfund program's primary repository of
program, enforcement planning, and accomplishment data. CERCLIS contains national
removal, site assessment, remedial, Federal facility, and enforcement program data for
hazardous waste sites.
Data Source: EPA's regional offices are responsible for entering detailed site-specific
information into CERCLIS, e.g., the status of cleanups, target and measure
accomplishments, and resource planning and use information. EPA Headquarters
routinely pulls and reviews CERCLIS data in order to effectively manage the Superfund
program, evaluate progress towards reaching program performance goals and measures,
and to report Superfund program accomplishments to internal and external stakeholders.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods
used to derive this information. Headquarters pulls accomplishment data associated with
targets and measures from CERCLIS on a quarterly basis using SCAP (Superfund
-------
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) and Enforcement reports that provide summary
and detailed site information.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, various administrative
controls have been established within the Superfund Program Implementation Manual
(SPEVI). The SPEVI is a planning document that defines program management priorities,
procedures, and practices for the Superfund Program. The SPEVI also provides
standardized and common definitions for program planning and reporting for the
following areas:
1. Report Specifications are contained in CERCLIS reports indicating how reported data
are pulled and displayed;
2. A Coding Guide contains technical instructions for data users such as Regional
Information Management Coordinators (EVICs), program personnel, data owners, and
data input personnel;
3. Quick Reference Guides (QRG) are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database
and provide detailed data entry instructions for most CERCLIS modules;
4. Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment (SCAP) and Enforcement reports are
used to track, budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and
measures; and 5. A historical lockout feature is provided in CERCLIS to ensure that any
changes to past fiscal year data can only be made by approved personnel and are recorded
within a Change Log report. These controls are contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPEVI) Fiscal Year 2008/2009
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm).
CERCLIS operation and development is managed by the following administrative control
and quality assurance procedures:
1. Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy
Agency Directive 2100.5, (http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf);
2. The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality
Management Plan,
(http ://www. epa. gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp .pdf)
3. Agency platform, software, and hardware standards,
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf);
4. Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is
being developed and maintained, (http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines);
and
5. Agency security procedures,
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView).
In addition to the above, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion,
data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an
informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there
are no published results.
Data Limitations: None
-------
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved October 2, 2007.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material
streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal
(program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation,
management and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program's long-term
goals, the Land program annually develops a list of key research outputs scheduled for
completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the fiscal
year, after which no changes are made. The program then tracks quarterly the progress
towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and
milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs
being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates
of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Land Protection and Restoration Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond
to requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and evaluation
of characterization and treatability study plans. (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on technical support centers' tracking of
timeliness in meeting customer needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time,
and customer outcome feedback are tabulated for the Engineering, Ground Water, and
Site Characterization Technical Support Centers.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Land Protection and Restoration Research Program Assessment, available
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Land research publications rated as highly cited papers
(program assessment measure).
• Percentage of Land research publications in high impact journals, (program
assessment measure)
-------
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are
conducted to obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are
completed using Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI provides access to a unique and comprehensive
compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data derived
from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI
employs both total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals
gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a
recognized authority for evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that
provide a systematic, objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their
impact and influence in the global research community. The two key measures used in
this analysis to assess the journals in which a program's papers are published are the
Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency
with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The
Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially when compared
to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other
key agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development's Land Protection and Restoration Research Program,
available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/remediation_bibliometric_2005_021308
.html (last accessed on Aug 21, 2008)
-------
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Contract cost reduction per study for assay validation efforts in the
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program, (program assessment efficiency
measure)
Performance Database: EPA will measure the contract cost reduction per study for
assay validation efforts in the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) by
comparing the cost per study from a previous contract to the cost of a newer multiple
awards contract. The newer multiple awards contract involves competition for individual
work assignments among two vendors in an effort to provide increased flexibility in both
the economic and scientific aspects of the contract. In addition, assays that have now
been standardized may be competed on a fixed price, rather than level of effort basis,
which will lead to reduced costs for the government.
This efficiency measure must be used in conjunction with the program's annual
performance measure (cumulative number of assays validated) to obtain a complete
picture of program performance. This is consistent with direction received during the FY
2006 program assessment review of EPA's Endocrine Program - to have efficiency
measures and annual performance measures, that when taken together, give a full picture
of the program.
Data Source: Information will be obtained from contract documents and stored in
spreadsheets by OSCP personnel responsible for managing the contracts.
Methods and Assumptions: The baseline average cost per study was calculated based
on contract costs from a previous EDSP contract. A laboratory study was defined as
conduct of an assay with a single chemical in a single lab, and represents standardized
study costs based on a mix of in vitro and in vivo studies, as well as detail review papers.
The baseline average cost per study was $62,175 in 2006. The measure of efficiency will
be based on similar data from the newer multiple award contract and judged based on the
target of a 1% cost reduction per year for three (3) years.
Suitability: The majority of funds allocated to the EDSP are spent on laboratory studies
conducted by contractors. As a result, a measure based on the contract costs is a suitable
measure of efficiency for this program.
QA/QC Procedures: Costs for products generated by scientific labs are used for this
efficiency measure. OPPTS's Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP)
maintains spreadsheets to track contract expenditures by study. These spreadsheets are
periodically checked against contract records and EPA contracts databases (i.e., Data
Financial Warehouse).
-------
Data Quality Review: Data generated from these spreadsheets, for the purposes of this
efficiency measure, will be independently reviewed for accuracy before submitting
information on this measure.
Data Limitations: In general, there is a data lag of approximately 9-24 months due to
the variation in length and complexity of the lab studies, and for time required for review,
analysis and reporting of data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program Proposed Statement of Policy, Dec. 28, 1998; Endocrine Disrupter Screening
and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA
Contract # 68-W-01-023.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals
Performance Database: EPA uses a reporting spreadsheet called
"HPV_HC_tracking_date.xls"" to track the number of completed Screening Level
Hazard Characterization Reports. The spreadsheet is located on the OPPT secure "I"
share drive. This information is supplemented and aligned twice a year with an
international database of chemicals sponsored internationally through Screening
Information Data Sets (SIDs) Initial Assessment Meetings. Hazard characterizations are
made publicly available through OPPT's High Production Volume Information System
(HP VIS).
Data Source: The Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are completed by
EPA staff based on submissions from chemical sponsors, and are completed for both U.S.
HPVs and international SIDS chemicals. Each screening level hazard characterization
document represents a thorough review by qualified EPA personnel of the information
provided by the submitter. Once a report is completed, as determined by senior scientist
and management review, the spreadsheet is updated with the chemical name and date of
completion.
Methods and Assumptions: This measure analyzes and supplements data received
through HPV challenge. An assessment of adequacy is made for HPV chemicals defined
as approximately 2,450 chemicals (1400 US Sponsored chemicals, 850 International
sponsored chemicals, and 200 Original Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIARs)). The measure is a count
of completed reports which are then posted on EPA's website. Note, some hazard
-------
characterizations may update older documents. In these cases, credit is given for most
recent update, while reducing previous year count.
Suitability: This output measure supports the overall goal of reducing risk from HPV
chemicals and is suitable for year to year as well as quarter to quarter comparisons.
Hazard screening is an important step in reducing risk and represents a key priority for
the existing chemicals program. The data collected in support of this measure are
suitable for use in performance measurement because they supply critical information
used by EPA in setting targets and conducting measurements under the measure.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008).
Data Quality Reviews: Recent GAO reviews found that EPA does not routinely assess
the risks of all existing chemicals and faces challenges in obtaining the information
necessary to do so.
EPA has taken several steps to respond to these reviews including more aggressive
efforts to collect data, continued efforts to assess data through hazard characterizations,
and increased emphasis on risk management activities for chemicals of concern.
Data Limitations: None.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. No models, assumptions or statistical methods are
applied.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
References:
GAO-05-458: Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess
Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, June 2005
GAO-06-1032T: Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness
of EPA's Chemical Review Program, August 2006
GAO-09-271: High Risk Series- An update. Transforming EPA's Processes for
Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals January 2009.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Millions of dollars in termite structural damage avoided annually by
ensuring safe and effective pesticides are registered/reregistered and
available for termite treatment (program assessment measure)
-------
Performance Database: Baseline data on the number of owner-occupied structures is
available from US Census Housing data. Estimates of the extent of termiticide use and
termite-related damage are available from several industry and academic sources.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from several sources, including U.S. Census
data, surveys conducted by the pest control industry, and academic publications.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure is representative of the explicit
statutory mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to
ensure the availability of pesticides to permit their societal benefits. An important role of
the National Pesticide Program is to prevent harm and preserve a level of public
protection.
Pesticides are the primary means to treat or prevent termite infestation. These pesticides
are not available for use to treat or prevent this problem unless the National Pesticide
Program evaluates their safety and allows them into the marketplace through the
Registration or Registration Review programs. Timely and effective licensing actions are
required for homeowners to have access to the benefits of these pesticides and avoid the
significant economic loss from termite structural damage.
Termites are one of the most economically important insect pests in the United States.
Approximately 1.5 million homes are treated for termite infestations each year.
Homeowners insurance can help recover losses from fires, storms, and earthquakes, but it
is almost impossible to carry insurance against termite infestation and damage. This
measure will utilize data that estimate the number of homes that suffer termite-related
damage on an annual basis, the value of this damage, the number and frequency of
termiticide treatments, and an estimate of the number of treated homes that would have
received termite damage absent the use of pesticide control measures.
Through this measure, the Agency will evaluate the extent of termiticide use to protect
owner-occupied housing units, average termite damage on a per housing unit basis, and
an estimate of the termite structural damage avoided as a result of having safe and
effective termite control products available for use.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in
ensuring the quality of the data used in this measure. Academic research undergoes strict
peer-review prior to publication. The Agency will work with non-governmental
providers of data to ensure that quality data are used in developing this measure.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Office of Pesticide Programs will
perform the data quality reviews under the leadership of our QA/QC officers.
Data Limitations: This measure continues to be refined. Currently available data were
not collected for performance accountability purposes and may lack precision. Non-
pesticide treatment actions may account for some structural damage avoided.
-------
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established surveys are documented by these
organizations in their survey reports.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data as well as new
data developed from industry and academic research.
References: Clausen, C.A. andF. Green. 2002. Home wreckers in search of moisture.
Techline. USD A Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, II-5.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techline/ii-5.pdf
Gold, R.E., M.E. Merchant, and GJ. Glenn. Undated. How to select a termite control
service. The Texas A&M University System, Texas Agricultural Extension Service. L-
1785
LSU AgCenter. 2005. Termite Facts and Figures. Louisiana State University.
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/environment/insects/Termites/formosan_termites/Termite
+Facts+and+Figures.htm
Strayhorn, C.K. 1997. Homeowners beware. Window on State Government. Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts. Fiscal Notes, August 1997.
http ://www. cpa. state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn9708 .html
Su, N.-Y. 2002. Novel technologies for subterranean termite control. Sociobiology
Williams, L.H. and R. V. Smythe. 1979. Estimated losses caused by wood products
insects during 1970 for single-family dwellings in 1 1 Southern States. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, Research paper SO- 145.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that effective pesticides
are available to address pest infestations, (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: To determine the value of potential crop loss avoided from the
use of pesticides, baseline and future data are collected on crop market prices, crop
production, total acres grown, acres treated with pesticides, and the percentage of crop
yield loss avoided as a result of the use of pesticides.
Data Source: Baseline data on crop market prices, crop production, and total acres
grown are from United States Department of Agriculture (USD A) databases, while the
percentage of potential yield loss without pesticides is estimated by Biological and
Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) scientists based on published and unpublished
studies. The number of acres treated with the pesticides is based on data submitted by
State Departments of Agriculture.
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The potential average AEL (avoided economic
loss) per emergency use granted is based on the actual acres for which the pesticide is
used. Data are available on yield losses without the emergency pesticide uses and the
actual acres treated with the pesticides allowed under the emergency exemptions. The
method for estimating this value involves calculating the potential crop loss avoided
based on the acres treated with the pesticides, per acre crop production and prices
received, and potential yield without the pesticides. In an attempt to measure the
magnitude of this potential crop loss avoided, the value is measured as a percent of state
production in value and national production in value.
The United States (U.S.) has a large cropland, productive soils, and a variety of favorable
agricultural climates. These factors contribute to and enable the U.S. to be a uniquely
large and productive agricultural producer. The value of agricultural crop production in
the U.S. totaled $239 billion1 in 2006. Major field crops in value in 2007 were corn ($52
billion), soybeans ($27 billion), wheat ($14 billion), and cotton ($5 billion), while
tomatoes ($2.2 billion), apples ($2.4 billion), and strawberries ($1.7 billion) are major
fruit/vegetable crops in value. (USDA, 2008)
American agricultural production far outweighs domestic consumption and the U.S. is
one of the World's largest agricultural exporters, worth approximately $82 billion in
FY2007 (over one quarter of total U.S. agricultural crop production). In order to be
competitive in the world market and to provide sufficient market supply for American
consumers, U.S. farmers need to be able to use pesticides for pest control as long as they
do not present significant risks to human health or the environment (USDA/ERS, 2008).
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring
the quality of the data derived from States, and USDA. The data used for the outcome
measure is based on well-established QA/QC procedures found in Data Quality
Assessment: A Reviewer's Guide (QA/G-9R)2 (PDF 61pp, 225K),
http://www.epa.gov/quality/dqa.html, which provides guidance on assessing data quality
criteria and performance specifications.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USDA/NASS methods of collecting and
analyzing data.
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be
characterized during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will
be provided in the Agency's annual Performance and Accountability Report.
Error Estimate: USDA provides discussion of analytical methods and associated
variability estimates in its chemical use publications. For example, see the Agricultural
Chemical Distribution Tables section, Survey and Estimation Procedure section and
Reliability section of the USDA publication Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field
Crops Summary
The value received by farmers was $239 billion in 2006
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data
systems.
References:
USDA data sources include: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Chemical Usage.
http ://usda.mannlib. Cornell. edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentlnfo.do? documentID=1001
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics, http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide
Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern
(diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion) (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report:
Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future data will be compiled from future reports.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and
Ground Water, 1992-2001. USGS is currently developing sampling in its second cycle
(cycle II) from 2002-2012, Data are available to the public on USGS-NAWQA website
from the (http://water.usge.gov/nawqa). USGS is currently developing sampling plans for
2013 - 2022. Future data will be available from USGS as it is made available on public
websites.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for
measuring exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability
to reduce exposure from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction
in water concentrations of pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water
column concentration is a major indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk
management, risk mitigation and risk communication actions. It will illuminate program
progress in meeting the Agency's strategic pesticide and water quality goals.
The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of
pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound
management and policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the
long-term results of its risk management decisions based on trends in pesticide
concentrations. Monitoring plans call for bi-yearly sampling in 8 urban watersheds; and
sampling every four years in a second set of 9 urban watersheds. The sampling frequency
for these sites will range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the
-------
size of the watershed and the extent of pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is
seasonally weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be
highest. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2013 - 2022.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring
the quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome
measure is based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/and
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is
preeminent in the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA
program has been collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and
aquifers across the Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review
(http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php).
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be
characterized during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will
be provided in the NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report. EPA will request that USGS
add additional insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line information
for newer products that have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the synthetic
pyrethroids). Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of pyrethoids
occurrence is bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring strategy.
Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and
associated variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data
systems.
References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006
report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.
The NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report does not exist at this time - the sampling is
in progress, thus there is no citation at this time. USGS has not published their sampling
plan. There will be a USGS report in the 2011 timeframe.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic
agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate
in a national data collection system known as the National Poisoning Data System
(NPDS). Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related incidents in both
-------
residential and occupational settings. The data collected include date of call, age, gender,
location of exposure, route of exposure, substance exposed to, route of exposure, initial
symptom assessment, treatment received and an evaluation of the medical outcome.
Symptoms are categories as minor, moderate, or major with criteria for each category.
Data Source: NPDS, formerly known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System
(TESS), is one of the most comprehensive sources of surveillance data on poisonings in
the United States. NPDS is a uniform database of PCCs, which are members of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed
throughout the United States. The database was established in 1985 and now includes
information on more than 36 million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more
than 4 million cases, including more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4
million informational calls.
NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards,
develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and
bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations,
recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of
new drugs.2
Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis
and treatment of poisonings. The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified
Specialists in Poison Information (SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses that
have managed at least 2,000 calls. SPIs are required to complete detailed electronic
medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic medical
records include general demographic information, including age, gender, location of
exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred, including
suspected substance, reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site,
symptoms, and medical outcome. To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many
of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been
defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible
exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined
categories "None," "Minor," "Moderate," "Major," or "Death." Additionally, the records
may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information
that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: We assume resources will continue to be
available for the Agency to purchase the data and that adequate resources will be
available at the local level to continue to fund the centers. The reduction in poisoning
incidents is expected to result from mitigation measures made during the reregi strati on,
from greater availability of lower risk alternative products resulting from the Agency's
reduce risk registration process, from the continued implementation of worker protection
enforcement and training.
2 Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology
(2007) 45, 815-917.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison
Control Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician
on call at all times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a
comprehensive file of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs), keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality
assurance program. In addition, EPA staff screen each case before analyzing the data set.
Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality
assurance of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case
before entering into its database.
Data Limitations: Because PCC participation is voluntary and the available resources
vary from year to year, the data contains uncertainty.
Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the
data. However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Poison Control Centers TESS (Toxic Exposure Surveillance System)
http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl .htm
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Improve or maintain a rate of incidents per 100,000 potential risk events in
population occupationally exposed to pesticides (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate
in a national data collection system known as the National Poisoning Data System
(NPDS). Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related exposures in both
residential and occupational settings. The data collected include date of call, age, gender,
location of exposure, route of exposure, substance exposed to, initial symptom
assessment, treatment received and an evaluation of the medical outcome. Symptoms are
categorized as minor, moderate, or major with standard criteria for each category.
Data Sources:
Health Incident Data:
NPDS, formerly known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), is one of the
most comprehensive sources of surveillance data on poisonings in the United States.
NPDS is a uniform database of PCCs, which are members of the American Association
of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed throughout the United States.
The database was established in 1985 and now includes information on more than 36
-------
million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more than 4 million cases, including
more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4 million informational calls.
NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards,
develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and
bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations,
recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of
new drugs.3
Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis
and treatment of poisonings. The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified
Specialists in Poison Information (SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses that
have managed at least 2,000 calls. SPIs are required to complete detailed electronic
medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic medical
records include general demographic information, including age, gender, location of
exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred, including
suspected substance, reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site,
symptoms, and medical outcome. To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many
of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been
defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible
exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined
categories "None," "Minor," "Moderate," "Major," or "Death." Additionally, the records
may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information
that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case.
Data from the NPDS database are used for the number of occupational incidents -
numerator. Specifically, it includes occupational incidents from exposures to
disinfectants, algecides and conventional pesticides, including those with multiple active
ingredients and where no active ingredient is identified.
The number of potential risk events in the population occupationally exposed to
pesticides - the denominator - is calculated from several sources. The estimate of
agricultural field workers is from the Department of Labor's National Agricultural
Workers Survey. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics captures employment
characteristics for the national workforce. The denominator also uses EPA/OPP's annual
report of Certified Applicators, and an estimate for the number of field entries by
farmworkers from the 1992 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
This performance measure is based on the annual number of occupational pesticide
incidents. A critical assumption is that EPA's pesticide program's efforts have a direct
impact on the decline of pesticide incidents and that additional external factors have no
3 Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology
(2007) 45, 815-917.
-------
effect on the number of pesticide incidents (e.g.; all influences on occupational incidents
arise from the program's efforts). From recent assessments, we do believe that
occupational poisonings are declining and that OPP's actions contribute significantly to
the reduction.
Calculation Description:
For the numerator :
Universe of Occupationally Exposed Individuals:
1. Certified Applicators = 1,100,000
2. "Under the Supervision" Applicators (Assume 4 X CA) = 4,000,000
3. Other Occupational Pesticide Users = 2,500,000*
* = Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates there are 50,000,000 employees
in non-agricultural fields that we believe utilize pesticides as part of their
business (e.g., healthcare support; food preparation; building & grounds
cleaning & maintenance; production; etc.). We assume that 5% of those
employees apply pesticides.
4. Agricultural Farmworkers = 1,800,000
Potential Pesticide Risk Events:
For occupational users (Groups #1-3 above), we assume every pesticide
application has the potential to create a pesticide incident with adverse health
effects. We conservatively estimate each individual in those groups makes 4
pesticide applications per year. Therefore,
7,600,000 occupational users X 4 applications/year = 30,400,000 Potential
Pesticide
Risk Events/Year
Agricultural Farmworkers spend an average of 105 days/year in the field (1992
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard).
We assume that 5% of field entries present potential risk from pesticide exposure.
Therefore,
105 days per/year X 5% = 5.25 Potential Pesticide Risk
Events/Year/Farmworker
5.25 X 1,800,000 Ag Farmworkers = 9,450,000 Potential Pesticide Risk
Events/Year
30,400,000 + 9,450,000 = 39,850,000 Total Potential Pesticide Risk
Events/Year
Occupational Pesticide Incidents:
-------
The Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System recorded there
were an average of 1388 occupational pesticide incidents with adverse health
impacts in 2001 - 2003, the most recent data available.
RATE OF INCIDENTS PER POTENTIAL PESTICIDE RISK EVENTS PER YEAR
1388 occupational pesticide incidents per —
39,850,000 potential pesticide risk events/year
3.5 incidents per 100,000
potential pesticide
risk
events/year
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison
Control Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician
on call at all times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls,
maintain a comprehensive file of toxicology information, maintain SOPs, retain case
records, and have a quality assurance program.
Data Quality Review: For the incident data, regular case reviews and audits are
scheduled to assure quality assurance of data collected by the Poison Centers. All data in
the NPDS system is subject to quality assurance requirements.
Data Limitations: Experts believe pesticide poisonings are under-reported to
surveillance sources, for reasons, including the symptoms of pesticide poisoning
generally are difficult to identify; there are few biomarkers for pesticides; and because
the exposed individual may not seek medical care or report their illness. Additionally,
not all states require mandatory physician reporting, and those that do may have difficulty
enforcing that requirement.
The denominator data for non-agricultural workers is from 2004; more recent BLS data
were not available.
Error Estimate: The number of potential risk events/year is most likely underestimated,
because we used conservative estimates in estimating the potential number of events.
For example, we estimated only 4 applications per year per individual which is likely to
be a very low estimate.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References:
American Association of Poison Control centers: http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl.htm
Department of Labor's National Agricultural Workers Survey:
http: //www. dol. gov/asp/program s/agworker/naws. htm
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Employment and
Wages, November 2004:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_l 1092005.pdf
EPA/OPP's annual report of Certified Applicators:
http ://www. epa. gov/oppfead 1 /safety/applicators/data, htm
-------
1992 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided (program
assessment efficiency)
Performance Database:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
The Association of American Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) began collecting data for
the purpose of identifying the leading hazards to humans from poisoning and to provide
resources for the management of these exposures.
Poison Control Centers are usually run by a hospital or university. Approximately 99%
of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) send incident data to the Toxic Exposure
Surveillance System (TESS), the national data collection system started in 1983. Each
PCC receives a minimum of 10,000 calls annually. About 13% of calls are from health
care providers treating patients and 87% of calls are from individuals who need
assistance in managing an exposure to poison. From 1993-1996, 92% of reported
exposures occurred in a residential setting. PCC collects data on exposures to any
substance and pesticide poisonings make up about 3% of all cases. PCCs submit data to
TESS 2 to 4 times per year.
Cost Data
Cost estimates are based on the President's budget and State and Regional Assistance
Grants funding documents.
Data Source:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCCs through their staff, and are received
from the public.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This efficiency measure is based on the annual
number of occupational pesticide incidents. A critical assumption is that EPA's pesticide
program's efforts have a direct impact on the decline of pesticide incidents and that
additional external factors have no effect on the number of pesticide incidents (e.g.,all
influences on occupational incidents arise from the program's efforts). From recent
assessments, we do believe that occupational poisonings are declining and that OPP's
actions contribute significantly to the reduction.
-------
Calculation:
Worker Safety Resources ($) = Cost /Pesticide Occupational
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided Incident Avoided
Worker Safety Resources = Value of extramural and Full Time Employee (FTE)
Resources from the President's Budget request identified as supporting EPA
Headquarters worker protection activities; and State and Regional Assistance
Grants (STAG) monies. It does not include headquarters resources for worker
protection in the Registration/Re-Registration/Registration Review programs,
because would result in double-counting. Regional resources for field programs
are in the form of FTEs, which are parsed differently into worker protection,
water quality, and strategic agricultural initiatives by the Regions depending on
their priority objectives. These data are not currently available. An additional
complication is the fact that states provide substantial funding for these programs
as well, and their contribution is not included here.
For recent years, annual STAG funds for worker safety (C&T and WP) total
$6.6M. The President's Budget has remained relatively constant at $2.7M for
Agricultural Worker Protection and $2.7M for Pesticide Applicator per year, for
an average of $12M as the numerator in the baseline calculation.
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided = Using pesticide incident data from
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, OPP established a
baseline for average incidents per year. Use of an average of three years is
appropriate to account for inconsequential fluctuations in the counts.
This measure will be tracked as follows: we will review annual occupational incident
data and compare it with the rolling average for the baseline. If the average number of
incidents from the most recent three years is below the baseline, the difference will be the
incidents avoided for use in the calculation.
QA/QC Procedures: Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCC. Certification
of the PCC requires that there be board certified physicians with expertise in toxicology
on-call at all times, poison information specialists available to handle calls, access to a
major medical library, guidelines for follow-up of each case to determine the patient's
final disposition or medical outcome. Taken together these criteria help to assure the
quality of the data.
Each Poison Control Center uses standard format for data collection. Standard data
elements include location of victim at the time of exposure, substance exposed to, route
of exposure, initial symptom assessment, and evaluation of medical outcome after case
follow up. Cases with symptoms are categorized by severity as minor, moderate, or
major.
-------
Data Quality Review: Trained PCC specialists review the case data and, based on the
information provided and their knowledge of toxicology, doses, and timing of exposure,
ascertain whether the incident was caused by pesticides.
Data Limitations: Experts believe pesticide poisonings are under-reported to
surveillance sources, for reasons, including the symptoms of pesticide poisoning
generally are difficult to identify; there are few biomarkers for pesticides; and because
the exposed individual may not seek medical care or report their illness. Additionally,
not all states require mandatory physician reporting, and those that do may have difficulty
enforcing that requirement.
Error Estimate: As mentioned above, under-reporting is believed to be a problem in all
pesticide incident data sets. There are a number of widely-ranging estimates for the
amount of under-reporting, ranging from 25% to as much as a factor of a thousand.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPP collects pesticide incident data under FIFRA
section 6(a)2. FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the
statute which governs the program functions. Section 6(a)2 is mandatory reporting
required of the registrants (registrants are those who have or seek registration of their
pesticide products). However, details important to this measure are not routinely
captured in this data set. We hope to improve the internal data systems that capture
incidents reported by the regulated community. Currently, data are difficult to use and
may not have needed detail. If these data were available, they could potentially be used
to complement or replace the PCC/TESS data, depending on their quality.
References: none
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected in general
population (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: The Agency will use the Centers for Disease Control's
(CDC's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-
2002 as the baseline. For this measure, the Agency intends to report on the changes in
potential organophosphate pesticide exposure, based on levels of the non-specific
organophosphate dialkyl phosphate metabolites and the chlorpyrifos-specific metabolite
3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol at the 50th percentile. The Agency selected the 50th
percentile because it is a central tendency value with smaller inherent variability than
higher percentiles. However, the Agency recognizes that an accurate estimate of the 50th
percentile cannot be calculated if 50 percent of the observations are below the LOD.
Therefore, the Agency may adopt an alternative approach, such as selecting the 75th
percentile, if a sufficient number of observations are not above the LOD.
Data Sources: NHANES (see above)
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The NHANES data were selected because the
surveys provide a statistically representative data set for the entire U.S. population. It is
an ongoing program, with funding from numerous cooperating Federal agencies. The
data are based on measurement of chemical levels in blood and urine.
QA/QC Procedures: This large scale survey is performed in strict compliance with
CDC QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize NHANES data. NHANES is a major
program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Public Health Service, and has
the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. The National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is one of the Federal statistical agencies belonging to
the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). The ICSP, which is led by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is composed of the heads of the Nation's 10
principal statistical agencies plus the heads of the statistical units of 4 non-statistical
agencies. The ICSP coordinates statistical work across organizations, enabling the
exchange of information about organization programs and activities, and provides advice
and counsel to OMB on statistical activities. The statistical activities of these agencies are
predominantly the collection, compilation, processing or analysis of information for
statistical purposes. Within this framework, NCHS functions as the Federal agency
responsible for the collection and dissemination of the Nation's vital and health statistics.
Its mission is to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to
improve the health of the American people.
To carry out its mission, NCHS conducts a wide range of annual, periodic, and
longitudinal sample surveys and administers the national vital statistics systems.
As the Nation's principal health statistics agency, NCHS leads the way with accurate,
relevant, and timely data. To assure the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of its
statistical products, NCHS assumes responsibility for determining sources of data,
measurement methods, methods of data collection and processing while minimizing
respondent burden; employing appropriate methods of analysis, and ensuring the public
availability of the data and documentation of the methods used to obtain the data. Within
the constraints of resource availability, NCHS continually works to improve its data
systems to provide information necessary for the formulation of sound public policy. As
appropriate, NCHS seeks advice on its statistical program as a whole, including the
setting of statistical priorities and on the statistical methodologies it uses. NCHS strives
to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the
confidentiality of individual responses.
Three web links to background on data quality are below:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/quality.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/lab_b_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22
quality%20control%20NHANES%22
-------
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22q
uality%20NHANES%22
Data Limitations: Some limitations include that not all pesticides are included, it is a
measure of exposure instead of risk, and there is a time-lag between EPA actions and the
CDC's analysis of the data.
Error Estimate: There is the potential of identifying metabolites that comes from both a
pesticide and another source.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
2005, CDC/National Center for Environmental Health/Environmental Health Laboratory
http ://www. cdc.gov/nchs/about/nhanes
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species
Bulletin (program assessment efficiency)
Performance Database: The Bulletins Live! application is enabled by a multi-user
relational database system that maintains a permanent archive with dates of the draft and
final content for each endangered species protection Bulletin that is created or updated in
the system. When the Bulletins Live! application is made available to the public, EPA
will take over the complete Bulletin production process, which is currently carried out by
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) staff through an Interagency Agreement
(see below). Additionally, tracking and summary reporting of all endangered species
mitigation actions including the time between which a decision is made to issue a
Bulletin and its availability to the public will be made available as a part of the OPP
"PRISM" information system that is planned for development in FY 2007. This system
will track the staff working on mitigation development and bulletin production, and the
time spent on these activities, allowing for a calculation of the cost per bulletin issued
with Bulletins Live!
Data Source: The data necessary to track progress towards the targets for this measure
are currently being collected by EPA. The Bulletins are being developed for EPA by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cartography and Publishing Program under an
Interagency Agreement (IAG) with OPP. The data will be collected annually through the
end-of-year report under the Interagency Agreement (IAG). The baseline year will be
2004 cost and time averages ($4000.00 and 100 hours per Endangered Species Bulletin
production or update).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: These Bulletins are a critical mechanism for
ensuring protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications
-------
Bulletins are legally enforceable extensions to pesticide labels that include geographically
specific use limitations for the protection of endangered species. The faster the Bulletins
can be developed, the earlier the protections are available to endangered and threatened
species. Similarly, the less it costs to produce the Bulletins, the more Bulletins can be
produced within available budget and the greater the impact on saving endangered and
threatened species.
This measure is calculated as follows:
100 - [(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12
month period)/(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species
Bulletins in previous 12 month period) X 100] This is intended to be a measure
that captures improvements in current year cost per bulletin vs. previous year cost
per bulletin.
100 - [(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species
Bulletins in current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in
the same 12 month period)/(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update
Endangered Species Bulletins in previous 12 month period/number of bulletins
produced or updated in the previous 12 month period) X 100]
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan to ensure
the overall quality of data in the Bulletins Live! system. Bulletins pass through a multi-
level quality control and review process before being released to the public. After the
initial Bulletin is created by trained staff in the Endangered Species Protection Program,
the draft is automatically routed in the system to a senior staff member who reviews the
information in the Bulletin as a quality control check. After this Agency review,
Bulletins are then subject to review and comment by Regional and State regulatory
partners responsible for different aspects of the field implementation program and
Bulletin enforcement.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews for the Bulletins themselves are ongoing
through the QA/QC methodology described above. Data quality reviews for components
of the measure (time per bulletin and cost per bulletin) will be carried out by the Project
Officers who manage the Bulletins Live! and PRISM systems.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The web-based Bulletins Live! system will facilitate
the expedited production and delivery of endangered species protection Bulletins as
compared to the 2004 baseline.
References:
-------
Endangered Species Protection Program website and Bulletins Live!:
http://www.epa.gov/espp; QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides
Program, February 2006; Endangered Species Act.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Reduce cost per acre using reduced risk pest management practices
compared to the grant and/or contract funds expended on environmental
stewardship (program assessment efficiency)
Performance Database: Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) database contains the
SAI grants funds and acreage data. We are going to track the number of acres, by
particular crop, under reduced risk pest management that was funded as part of a grant
and/or contract. This database is currently on the web site of our cooperator, the
American Farmland Trust. Eventually, Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP) data will be included. PESP data are those reported to EPA in grant reports. We
look at the adoption rate of reduced risk pesticides and compare it to the cost of the grant.
The performance data are the acres impacted by the project verses the amount of grant or
contract funds.
Data Source: Reports from grantees and contractors will be used as well as available
databases to track the adoption of safer pest management practices. Such data sources
include the USD A National Agricultural Statistics Service's surveys, Doane Marketing
Research data, and pesticide usage records provided by user groups. Agricultural
pesticide user groups who are members of PESP frequently report their use of safer pest
management practices as part of their annual reports
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each grantee or contractor is required to
provide reports on their project including the success of adoption of safer pest
management practices. For SAI grants, the SAI Coordinator in each of the 10 EPA
Regional Offices enters the results from the SAI grants into the SAI database. The SAI
Coordinator at EPA Headquarters encourages the Regional Coordinators to do this in a
timely fashion. EPA Headquarters' Project Officer of the PESP grant serves the same
function, making sure interim and final reports are provided to EPA without delay. EPA
will track the adoption of new practices using publicly and commercially available
databases, such as those described above. At times, data also are available on the
adoption of a particular biopesticide or other reduced risk pesticide from the registrant of
that product or from a user group that is adopting the new technology. This data can be
very useful in tracking adoption in the early stages or in cases where little data is
available, such as for minor crops. Data supplied by registrants can be compared to
information supplied to EPA under Section 7 of FIFRA to identify major errors, but it
would be hard to identify minor errors or flaws in the data.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA QA/QC procedures are followed for each grant and/or
contract where environmental data is being collected. Part of the Agency's Quality
Management Plan requires that grantees and/or contractors have a QA/QC program in
-------
place before the grant/contract is awarded. A staff member, typically the project officer
for the grant or contract, typically often conducts onsite visits every year to ensure
QA/QC procedures is being followed. Typically, field trials and demonstrations are
visited by the Regional SAI Coordinators or the EPA grantee for PESP work. Data from
other internal and external sources, where available, will be used to determine the validity
of the information provided by registrants and grower groups.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Environmental Stewardship
Branch and the Regional SAI Coordinators will perform data quality reviews under the
leadership of program QA/QC officers.
Data Limitations: Major pesticide usage surveys will likely miss minor usages.
Voluntary reporting by grantees and grower groups on the use of their reduced risk pest
management practices introduces more error/bias than if a statistically valid sample were
taken. However, funding and managing this kind of sample survey will be a challenge.
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established databases such as Doane and NASS
surveys are documented by these organizations in their survey reports. Audits of grants
are intended to reduce errors, but best estimates may be relied upon when statistically
valid samples are not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will improve the existing SAI database by
including PESP data or will create a comparable database to track the PESP data.
References :http://www. epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/and
http://www.aftresearch.org/sai/collaborations
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due
date)
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
Performance Database: The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003
established .pesticide registration service fees for registration actions. The Pesticide
Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2), effective October 1, 2007,
reauthorized the PRIA for five more years until 2012. The PRIA 2 legislation increased
the number of actions covered by fees, modified the payment process and application in-
processing. The category of action, the amount of pesticide registration service fee, and
the corresponding decision review periods by year are prescribed in these statutes. Their
goal is to create a more predictable evaluation process for affected pesticide decisions,
and couple the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. They
also promote shorter decision review periods for reduced-risk applications. PRISM
(Pesticide Registration Information System) consolidates various pesticides program
databases. It is maintained by the EPA and track regulatory data submissions and studies,
organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a
-------
pesticide's registration. All registration actions received under the PRIA and PRIA 2 are
entered and tracked in PRISM. In addition to being entered into PRISM, Section 18
actions are also tracked in a separate database which is used to populate a searchable web
page linked to the main Office of Pesticide Programs web page. S18 timeliness was
reported on a FY basis for the first time in FY 2005.
Data Source: PRISM, Section 18 database
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the
marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when used in accordance
with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. In addition, under
PRIA and PRIA 2 , there are specific timelines, based on the type of registration action,
by which the Agency must make a decision. These laws do allow the decision due date
under PRIA to be negotiated to a later date, after consultation with and agreement by the
submitter of the application. The timeliness measure represents the Agency's
effectiveness in meeting these PRIA timelines.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standards. All risk assessments are subject to
public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan
(Nov. 2006) in ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.
Data Quality Review: The Agency employs continuous monitoring of the status of PRIA
decisions. Numerous internal Agency meeting continue to monitor workload and
compliance with PRIA due dates. Throughout the pesticide registration program, weekly
meetings are held to review the status of pending decisions, due date extensions, and
refunds; to identify potential issues and target their resolution; to resolve fee category
questions; and to coordinate schedules with science support organizations. Senior
managers review justifications and make final decisions to extend of negotiate a PRIA
due date and whether or not to issue a "PRIA Determination to Not Grant" a registration.
On a bi-monthly basis, progress in meeting PRIA due dates and the short term pending
workload are evaluated across all involved organizations and periodically shared with
stakeholder groups.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: Reports developed in Business Objects (using PRISM
as the data source) allow senior management to more effectively track the workload (e.g.,
pending actions with upcoming PRIA due dates, actions for which the PRIA date appears
to have passed etc.) and ensure that PRIA or negotiated due dates are met.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/
-------
FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996;
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) 2003; Pesticide Registration
Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2) 2007
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
• Number of pesticide registration review dockets opened
• Number of pesticide registration review final work plans completed
Performance Database: OPP's Reevaluation process includes Product Reregistration
and Registration Review. The Product Reregistration process is scheduled to be
completed in 2014, while the Registration Review process will be in full operation at that
time. Major milestones are tracked in the Pesticide Registration Information System
(PRISM). PRISM is maintained by EPA and tracks regulatory data submissions and
studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in
support of a pesticide's registration review. Actions are entered in PRISM as they occur
and reported on a fiscal year basis. In addition manual counts are maintained by the
office.
Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program, PRISM, and Manual Systems.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that approved pesticides remain
safe for human health and the environment. While program outputs do not directly
measure risk reduction, they do reflect progress made toward reducing risk. In 1988,
Congress amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
requiring EPA to evaluate all pesticides registered prior to November 1984 to assure that
they meet current safety standard and are supported with high quality data. The review of
all the active ingredients (AIs) was completed in October 2008. Over the next five years,
registrants will be required to submit product specific data and new product labels to
comply with the decisions on the AIs. OPP's review and approval (or cancellation)
process of each individual product label is referred to as Product Reregistration. Product
Reregistration is scheduled for completion in 2014. The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 directed EPA to establish a Registration Review program with the goal of reviewing
all registered pesticides, AIs and products, on a 15-year cycle to ensure that they continue
to meet the standards of registration. EPA issued the final rule in 2006 and began
implementing the program in 2007. Under the rule, EPA posts registration review
schedules and these will provide a baseline for expected AI case dockets that will be
opened for the next three year cycle and for decisions expected over the next several
years. The first step of Registration Review is to open a public docket for each pesticide
case entering the process to show the public what the Agency knows about the AI and
seek comment. When comments are evaluated and data needs are finalized, OPP posts a
Final Work Plan (FWP) for each AI case. Although the docket openings and the FWPs
are tracked, both steps require notable resources to complete.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: All registrations must be based on sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standard. All risk assessments are subject to
public and scientific peer review. In addition, OPP management reviews and signs new
documents before being placed in the docket or posted on EPA's website.
Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the
decision document.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA recently constructed a module in PRISM
tracking major Registration Review milestones. This module enhances tracking
capabilities and is an important management tool.
References: EPA Website: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/registration_review/
("Registration Review: A Periodic Look at Old Pesticides");
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research
(DMR) data, for this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001
on an FY basis.
Data Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing Research, Inc. (a private sector
research database). The database contains agricultural pesticide usage information by
pesticide, year, crop use, acreage and sector.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide must meet the criteria
set forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk
pesticides include those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-
target organisms; reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water,
or other valued environmental resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest
management strategies or make such strategies more available or more effective. In
addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus reduced-risk). EPA's
statistical and economics staff review data from DMR. Information is also compared to
prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the variability.
DMR sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website.
More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required.
Data are weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known
disproportionalities (known disproportionality refers to a non proportional sample, which
-------
means individual respondents have different weights) and ensure consistency with USDA
and state acreage estimates.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are
subject to public and scientific peer review. DMR data are subject to extensive QA/QC
procedures, documented at their websites. In ensuring the quality of the data, EPA's
pesticide program adheres to its Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved November,
2006.
The main customers for the DMR pesticide usage data are the pesticide registrants. Since
those registrants know about sales of their own products, they have an easy way to judge
the quality of Doane provided data. If they considered the quality of the data to be poor,
they would not continue to purchase the data.
Data Quality Review: The DMR data are subject to extensive internal quality review,
documented at the website. EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from DMR.
Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to
determine the reasons for the variability. For some crops and states, comparisons are also
made with a more limited pesticide usage database from the National Agricultural
Statistics Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Data Limitations: DMR data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed
information, the Agency must obtain approval from the company. There is a data lag of
approximately 12-18 months, due to the collection of data on a calendar year (CY) basis,
time required for DMR to process data, lead time for EPA to purchase and obtain data,
plus the time it takes to review and analyze the data within the office's workload.
Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of
sampling. This measure is compiled by aggregating information for many crops and
pesticides. While considerable uncertainty may exist for a single pesticide on a single
crop, pesticide use data at such a highly aggregated level are considered quite accurate.
DMR sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their website.
More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is required.
Data are weighted and multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for known
disproportionalities and ensure consistency with USDA and state acreage estimates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are
not known in any detail at this time.
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane
Marketing Research, Inc.: http://www.doanemr.com; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and
http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration
Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997; Endangered Species Act.
-------
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide
Program aquatic life benchmarks for two pesticides of concern (azinphos-
methyl and chlorpyrifos.)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report:
Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future data will be compiled from future reports.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and
Ground Water, 1992-2001. USGS is currently developing sampling in its second cycle
(cycle II) from 2002-2012. Data are available to the public on the USGS-NAWQA
website from the (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/). USGS is currently developing sampling
plans for 2013 - 2022. Future data will be available from USGS as it is made available
on public websites.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for
measuring exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability
to reduce exposure from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction
in water concentrations of pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water
column concentration is a major indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk
management, risk mitigation and risk communication actions. It will illuminate program
progress in meeting the Agency's strategic pesticide and water quality goals.
The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of
pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound
management and policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the
long-term results of its risk management decisions based on trends in pesticide
concentrations. Monitoring plans call for yearly monitoring in 8 agricultural watersheds;
bi-yearly sampling in 3 agricultural dominated watersheds; and sampling every four years
in a second set of 25 agricultural watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will
range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the size of the
watershed and the extent of pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is seasonally
weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest.
USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2013 - 2022.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring
the quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome
measure is based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/and
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
-------
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is
preeminent in the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA
program has been collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and
aquifers across the Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review
(http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php).
Data Limitations: These data continue to be evaluated and data limitations will be
characterized during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will
be provided in the NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report. EPA has requested that
USGS add additional insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line
information for newer products that have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the
synthetic pyrethroids). Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of
pyrethoids occurrence in bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring
strategy.
Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and
associated variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data
systems.
References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006
report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.
The NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report does not exist at this time - the sampling is
in progress, thus there is no citation at this time.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction of children's exposure to rodenticides
Performance Database:
Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a national data
collection system known as the National Poisoning Data System (NPDS). Among the
types of exposures reported are pesticide related incidents in both residential and
occupational settings. The data collected include date of call, age, gender, location of
exposure, route of exposure, substance exposed to, initial symptom assessment, treatment
received and an evaluation of the medical outcome.
Data Sources:
NPDS, formerly known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), is one of the
most comprehensive sources of surveillance data on poisonings in the United States.
NPDS is a uniform database of PCCs, which are members of the American Association
of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed throughout the United States.
The database was established in 1985 and now includes information on more than 36
-------
million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more than 4 million cases, including
more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4 million informational calls.
NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards,
develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and
bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations,
recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of
new drugs.4
Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis
and treatment of poisonings. The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified
Specialists in Poison Information (SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses and
have managed at least 2,000 calls. SPIs are required to complete detailed electronic
medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic medical
records include general demographic information, including age, gender, location of
exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred, including
suspected substance, reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site,
symptoms, and medical outcome. To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many
of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been
defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible
exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined
categories "None," "Minor," "Moderate," "Major," or "Death." Additionally, the records
may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information
that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case. The information
recorded by SPIs is managed by each PCC and then uploaded to NPDS every one to sixty
minutes, creating a real-time national exposure surveillance system. For this measure, all
confirmed exposures involving children less than six-years old are included, regardless of
medical outcome or severity.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: OPP assumes resources will continue to be
available for the Agency to purchase the data and that adequate resources will be
available at the local level to continue to fund the centers. The reduction in exposures is
expected to result from mitigation measures made as part of OPP's re-evaluation
programs, from greater availability of lower risk alternative products resulting from the
Agency's reduce risk registration process, from the continued implementation of worker
protection enforcement and training.
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison
Control Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician
on call at all times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a
comprehensive file of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs), keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality
assurance program. In addition, EPA staff screen each case before analyzing the data set.
4 Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology
(2007) 45, 815-917.
-------
Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality
assurance of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case
before entering into its database.
Data Limitations: Because PCC participation is voluntary and the available resources
vary from year to year, the data contains uncertainty.
Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the
data. However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Poison Control Centers National Poisoning Data System (NPDS)
http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl .htm
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Annual number of chemicals with final Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) values (program assessment)
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the annual number of chemicals
with Final AEGL values as recorded in the AEGL Chemical Status sans Structure Access
2000 database containing the approval dates for final AEGL values. The results are
calculated on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting
data, from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are
derived, are collected, evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and
contractors (currently Oak Ridge National Laboratory's scientists - this work has
shifting to a competed contract. Proposed AEGL values are published for public
comment in the Federal Register. After reviewing public comment, interim values are
presented to the AEGL Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for
review and comment. After review and comment resolution, the National Research
Council under the auspices of the National Academies (NAS) publishes the values as
final. Although proposed AEGLs are not considered final until so designated by the
NAS, the proposed values are suitable for many purposes. This performance measure is
tied to final values because EPA has completed work in developing proposal AEGL
values. EPA's contract gives us more control over finalizing AEGL values. In FY2009
and almost exclusively in FY2011, in-house and financial resources will increasingly be
devoted to finalizing AEGL chemicals through the NAS.
Methods and Assumptions: The work of the National Advisory Committee's Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory
-------
Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research Council/National Academies
of Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency
Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances. NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the
National Academy of Sciences' Subcommittee on AEGLs, has developed standard
operating procedures (SOPs), which are followed by the program. These have been
published by the National Academy Press and are referenced below. The number of
AEGL values approved as "final" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee represents the
measure of performance. The data meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are
reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This output measure supports the long term goal of assigning proposed
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for all priority chemicals by 2011.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008) Like the 2003 QMP, it
will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort. QA/QC procedures,
specific to AEGLs, include public comment via the Federal Register process; review and
approval by the FACA committee; and review and approval by the NAS/AEGL
committee and their external reviewers.
Data Quality Review: Not applicable. The counts used as a basis for this measure are
fully transparent.
Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the
information relied upon in developing or reporting this measure.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from
statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Access databases, spreadsheets and other files are
maintained and improved on an ongoing basis.
References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/). NRC (National Research Council).
1993. Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Substances. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
AEGL Program website at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
•• Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (> 10 ug/dL)
(program assessment measure)
-------
•• Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5
years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5
years old. (program assessment measure)
» Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (> 5 ug/dL)
Performance Database: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as
the primary database in the United States for national blood lead statistics. NHANES is a
probability sample of the non-institutionalized population of the United States. Data are
collected on a calendar year basis, and are currently released to the public in two year
sets. Blood lead levels are measured for participants who are at least one year old. The
survey collects information on the age of the participant at the time of the survey.
Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey
designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. The
survey program began in the early 1960s as a periodic study, and continues as an annual
survey. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000
men, women, and children each year located across the U.S. CDC's National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) is responsible for the conduct of the survey and the release of
the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish results from the survey,
generally in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), but also in
scientific journals. In recent years, CDC has published a National Exposure report based
on the data from the NHANES. The most current National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is available at the Web site
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. More recent performance results were published in
a March 2009 Pediatrics journal article.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.Org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/e376 Performance results
will be updated as new peer reviewed NHANES data is published either in the official
CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles as
the data become available.
Methods and Assumptions: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also
includes an extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological
measurements, and laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of environmental
interest include: metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs, phthalates,
organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their metabolites, dioxins/furans, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-
derived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results
of physical exams. For this performance measure, NHANES has been recognized as the
definitive source. Estimates of the number of children 1-5 years with an elevated blood
lead level based on NHANES have been published by CDC (See
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines
issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be combined for an
analysis. The NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the two
performance measures and are nationally recognized as the best source of this data. This
-------
data source measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection
limits.
Suitability: The first measure supports the long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern by the year 2010 and continuing to maintain the
elimination of childhood lead poisoning over time. The second measure examines the
disparities of blood lead levels in low-income children compared to non low-income
children and uses this measure to track progress towards EPA's long-term goal of
eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach vulnerable populations.
QA/QC Procedures: Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web site
at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at the
Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to
collect data to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review.
Additional information on the interview and examination process can be found at the
NHANES web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
Data Limitations: NHANES is a voluntary survey and selected persons may refuse to
participate. In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a
physical exam. There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and
examinations because some participants only complete one step of the survey.
Participants may answer the questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood
sample. Special weighting techniques are used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal
changes in blood lead levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design.
Because NHANES is a sample survey, there may be no children with elevated blood lead
levels in the sample, but still some children with elevated blood lead levels in the
population.
Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design,
appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and
associated measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate
approaches are addressed in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES Web site
http ://www. cdc.gov/nchs/about/maj or/nhanes/nhanes2003 -
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling
schedule, scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of National Exposure reports
by CDC.
References: 1) the NHANES Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; 2) the
Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site,
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR) article with the most recent estimate of the number of children with elevated
-------
blood lead levels, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4)
NHANES Analytical
Guidelines,http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications
that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process (program assessment
efficiency measure)
• Cumulative number of certified Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
Firms
Performance Database: The National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD) in the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) maintains the Federal Lead-Based
Paint Program (FLPP) database. Records are maintained for both the abatement and
Renovation Repair and Painting programs in States where the program is directly
implemented by EPA.
Processing abatement applications: The FLPP electronic database contains applications
for certification by individuals and firms and applications for accreditation by training
providers in states and tribal lands administered by the Federal lead abatement program.
The database provides a record of all applications for certification or accreditation for
Federally-managed lead programs and the actions on those applications including final
decisions and the multiple steps in the process used for measurement. The database is
augmented by hard copy records of the original applications. EPA uses an Oracle
Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable performance data.
RRP Firms: The FLPP database was recently expanded to also track the certification of
firms for Renovation Repair and Painting where EPA directly implements the program.
EPA uses an Oracle Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable
performance data.
Data Source:
Processing Abatament applications: The FLPP database is available internally to EPA
Headquarters, the federal program contractors and Regional lead program staff who
process the applications or oversee the processing. The database is maintained on EPA
servers at the National Computer Center (NCC) located in Research Triangle Park (RTF),
North Carolina. Access to the database is granted by the Lead, Heavy Metals, and
Inorganics Branch (LHMTB) in NPCD. Overall maintenance of the database and periodic
improvements are handled by a contractor, currently HeiTech Corporation, located in
Landover, Maryland. Data entry of application data is conducted by a second contractor,
currently Optimus Corporation, located in Silver Spring, Maryland. Optimus
Corporation maintains the file of the original applications. Each EPA Regional office
maintains a file of copies of the original applications for that region.
-------
RRP firms: As of October, 2009 firms apply for certification through EPA. However, as
States become authorized to administer their own RRP programs, States will be
responsible for the authorization of firms in their state. EPA will collect data on the
numbers of firms certified in each authorized state as part of the Agency's oversight of
authorized programs through semi-annual reports from grantees.
Methods and Assumptions:
Processing abatement applications- Each complete application for certification or
accreditation in Federally-managed states and tribal lands is processed (approximately
3000 per year). Certification is issued if all criteria are met. Some applications may be
returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant. For the applications that are fully
processed, the length of time for EPA processing can be determined from date fields in
the FLPP database. Accordingly, a census of all the fully processed applications for
certification is periodically conducted, and the percentage of applications that took more
than the prescribed number of days (e.g., 20) of EPA effort to process is computed based
on this census. The census is conducted every six months, and the annual percentage
calculated appropriately from the six month percentages. The data used to estimate this
performance measure directly reflect all information that has been recorded pertaining to
certification applications and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data meet
the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
RRP firms: The above methods and assumptions apply to the lead abatement program.
On March 31, 2008, EPA issued a new rule (Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
Rule or RRP rule) aimed at protecting children from lead-based paint hazards. The rule
requires contractors and construction professionals that work in pre-1978 housing or
child-occupied facilities to follow lead-safe work practice standards to reduce potential
exposure to dangerous levels of lead for children in places they frequent. In April, 2009,
training providers may begin applying to EPA for accreditation to provide renovator or
dust sampling technician training. Persons seeking certification as renovators or dust
sampling technicians may take accredited training as soon as it is available. In October,
2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations.
Beginning in April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied
facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with
accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule.
For 2011, EPA will be reviewing and adjusting performance measures for both the
abatement program and the RRP program as appropriate.
Suitability:
Processing abatement applications: This measure tracks EPA Headquarters and Regional
effort in processing lead-based paint certification and refund applications for the
abatement program. This measure reflects an integral part of the Lead Program and
ensures proper training for lead-based professionals. Data are available mid-year and
end-of-year and enable the program to demonstrate program efficiencies and enhance
accountability.
-------
RRP firms: This measure tracks total impact of the RRP regulation via establishment of a
cadre of certified firms available for Remodeling work throughout the country. In
October, 2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations.
Beginning in April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied
facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with
accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it
will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort. In addition, NPCD has
an approved Quality Management Plan in place, dated July 2008. Applications and
instructions for applying for certification and accreditation are documented and available
at the Web site http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm. Documentation for the FLPP
database is maintained internally at EPA and is available upon request.
Data Quality Reviews: The FLPP database is an internal EPA database, maintained for
the purpose of processing and tracking applications. The database is interactive, and
operational usage in processing applications by Headquarters and the Regional offices
provides ongoing internal quality reviews. Further, EPA periodically checks contractors'
data entry quality.
Data Limitations: Processing abatement applications: Applications that were returned to
the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant are not captured in the database queries and
are out of scope for this performance measure. While the report is based on a census, it
generates some duplicative data, which must be removed manually. Efforts are made to
remove all duplicative data, while preserving valid data. However, because this is a non-
automated process, a small amount of human error is possible. Some variability occurs
due to unique conditions that vary by Region. Some Regions consistently process
applications in less time than others. This variability may be due to factors such as badge
printing capabilities and economies of scale. Efforts are currently being made to
automate this report.
RRP firms: Data are estimates from firm certification applications received either directly
by EPA or through EPA authorized State programs and reported to EPA Regional offices.
Error Estimate: Processing abatement applications: There is little or no sampling error
in this performance measure, because it is based on a census of all applicable records.
RRP firms: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and therefore
error estimates are not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The FLPP database is currently undergoing
improvements to track individual certifications and training provider accreditations for
the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) program.
-------
As additional states report RRP firms data to EPA Regional offices, we will consider
automating this process through the addition of the Regional Annual Commitment
System (ACS) measure. This may not be needed until 2012 or future years.
References: 1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division,
June 2008; 2) FLPP database documentation; 3) URL for Applications and Instructions,
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Annual reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) chemicals from
manufacturing facilities (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model
feeds this measures and uses annual reporting from individual industrial facilities along
with a variety of other information to evaluate chemical emissions and other waste
management activities. RSEI incorporates detailed data from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and Integrated Risk Information System, the U.S. Census, and many
other sources. Due to a two year TRI data lag, most recent performance data are only
available for FY 2007 and earlier. The data are based on calendar year.
Data Source: The RSEI model incorporates data on chemical emissions and transfers
and facility locations from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory; chemical toxicity data from
IRIS; facility location data from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS); stack data from
EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem and National Emissions Trends Database and the
Electric Power Research Institute; meteorological data from the National Climatic Data
Center; stream reach data from EPA's Reach File 1 Database; stream discharge data from
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS); data on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information
System; fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; exposure factors from EPA's
Exposure Factor Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Methods and Assumptions: The RSEI Model generates unique, unitless, numerical
values, known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose,
toxicity and exposed population for each release-exposure event. Indicator Elements are
risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility,
chemical, release medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Together
these values form the building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest.
Indicator Elements are like index numbers that can be compared to one-another but do
not reflect actual risk, and are proportional to the modeled relative risk of each release
(incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). These Indicator Elements
are summed in various ways to represent the risk-related results for releases users are
interested in assessing. RSEI results are for comparative purposes and are only
meaningful when compared to other scores produced by RSEI. These data are acceptable
-------
for use in performance measurement as they are national data reflecting releases and
transfers of chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
The Toxics Release Inventory covers multiple industries including manufacturing, metal
and coal mining, electric utilities and commercial hazardous waste treatment. The
measure only looks at releases from the manufacturing sector to most closely represent
the sector over which lUR-related efforts will be effective. Currently, there are close to
650 chemicals found in the TRI, however, only about a third of those (approximately
237) are IUR chemicals of concern in RSEI. In order to generate a RSEI score the
chemicals need toxicity data. Therefore, of the approximate 237 TRI chemicals in RESI,
some were excluded that did not have toxicity weights, reducing the number of chemicals
included in the measure to just below 200.
Suitability: This RESI measure supports the long term goal to reduce the RSEI index for
IUR chemicals of concern 45% by 2011. This measure provides a suitable year to year
comparison against this goal and looks specifically at the reduction of risk for the subset
of TRI chemicals that are also IUR chemicals. The year to year comparison can reveal
trends in the risk from IUR chemicals over time. Despite a two year lag in TRI data,
annual comparisons of RSEI IUR results can reveal trends in chemical risk over time.
Further, depending on how the user wishes to aggregate data, RSEI can also address
trends nationally, regionally, by state or smaller geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008) and a specific Plan for
the model ("Quality Assurance Project Plan Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model Version 2.1.6", which applies to the 2.2.0 version of RSEI) will ensure that those
standards and procedures are applied to this effort. The 2008 QMP will assure that those
standards and procedures are applied to this effort. Additionally, because TRI facilities
self-report release data and occasionally make errors TRI has quality control functions
and an error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes. Finally during each
RSEI update, the output data are checked against TRI data for consistency, and the results
are compared against previous years' RSEI results.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of
which has completed a data-specific quality review process managed by the providers of
the data sources. RSEI includes data from the many sources listed in "Data Sources",
above. All data are collected for regulatory or programmatic purposes and are of
sufficient quality to be used by EPA, other Federal agencies, and state regulatory
agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three reviews
by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The RSEI model has undergone continuous
upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review. Toxicity weighting methodology was completely
revised and subject to a second positive review by SAB (in collaboration with EPA's
Civil Rights program); air methodology was revised and groundtruthed using New York
data to demonstrate high confidence; water methodology has been revised in
collaboration with EPA's Water program. When the land methodology has been reviewed
-------
and revised, EPA will have completed its formal, written response to the 1997 SAB
Review.
Data Limitations: RSEI relies on facility-specific data (for parameters such as stack
height, discharge stream reach, location) from EPA data sources. Where such data are
not available, default assumptions are used, or in some cases, the release is not modeled.
Offsite releases (from transfers of toxic chemicals) are particularly affected by a lack of
reported TRI data, and while RSEI addresses this through a process that optimizes the
available data, the data are limited and of uneven quality. In addition, toxicity data are
not available for some of the less-toxic TRI chemicals. Releases to water are not
available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. territories, and some releases to water
(for reporting facilities and offsite facilities) may not be modeled because of inadequate
coverage in the stream reach data. It should also be noted that TRI data include releases
only from TRI-reportable facilities for TRI-reportable chemicals. It does not include all
releases from reporting facilities or all releases of TRI-reportable chemicals. TRI data
may also have errors that are not corrected in the standard TRI QC process.
Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and
groundtruthing studies have been used to address model accuracy
(www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/). For example, groundtruthing of the air modeling performed by
RSEI compared to site-specific regulatory modeling done by the state of New York
showed virtually identical results in both rank order and magnitude. However, the
complexity of modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with un-quantified data limitations,
limits a precise estimation of errors that may either over- or under-estimate risk-related
results.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other
Agency databases (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Information System and Reach File
databases) and incorporates updated data into the RSEI databases. Such improvements
can also lead to methodological modifications in the model. For the 2.2.0 update, the air
dispersion model used by RSEI is being updated to the Office of Air's recommended
model, AERMOD. Additionally, corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years
are captured by the annual updates to the RSEI model databases. EPA is now using data
from the FRS to assign geographic locations to TRI facilities.
References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997 review
by the EPA Science Advisory Board. The Agency has provided this and other updated
technical documentation on the RSEI Home Page.
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model (RSEI) Home Page. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, Peer Reviews. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/pubs/faqs.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Methodology Document.
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/method2004.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI User's Manual. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/users_manual.pdf
-------
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Fact Sheet,. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not
pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment
Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several
EPA databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS),
(Management Information Tracking System) MITS, (Pre-manufacture Notice) PMN
Lotus Notes, (PMN) CBI Local Area Network (LAN), 8(e) database for new chemicals
called ISIS, and the Focus database. The following information from these databases will
be used collectively in applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• MITS: Captures NCP regulatory dispositions and maintains NCP workflow for new
chemicals;
PMN Lotus Notes: Records PMN review and decision, assessment reports on chemicals
submitted for review. New workflow system for new chemicals submitted since August
2008.
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports
on chemicals submitted for review before August 2008. In addition, the information
developed for each PMN is kept in hard copy in the Confidential Business Information
Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 8(e). TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and
distributors notify EPA immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished
chemical information that reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA
8(e) substantial risk information notices most often contain toxicity data but may also
contain information on exposure, environmental persistence, or actions being taken to
reduce human health and environmental risks. It is an important information-gathering
tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus Database: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including
decisions on whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.
Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant
information received over the 12-month fiscal year.
Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is responsible for
the implementation of the TSCA. The office will compare data submitted under TSCA
Section 8(e) with previously-submitted new chemical review data (submitted under
TSCA Section 5 and contained in the PMN). This comparison will determine the number
of instances in which EPA's current PMN review practices would have failed to prevent
the introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between the
-------
8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data will be evaluated by applying
the methods and steps outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies signify an
"unreasonable risk."
Methods and Assumptions: EPA's methods for implementing this measure involve
determining whether EPA's current PMN review practices would have failed to prevent
the introduction of chemicals or microorganisms into commerce that pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment, based on comparisons of
8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data. The "unreasonable risk"
determination is based on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks identified by EPA,
(2) limitations on risk that result from specific safeguards applied, and (3) the benefits to
industry and the public expected to be provided by the new chemical substance. In
considering risk, EPA looks at anticipated environmental effects, distribution and fate of
the chemical substance in the environment, patterns of use, expected degree of exposure,
the use of protective equipment and engineering controls, and other factors that affect or
mitigate risk. The following are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the 8(e) data
with the previously-submitted new chemical review data:
1. Match all 8(e) submissions in the 8(e) database with associated TSCA Section 5
notices. TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day advance notice
(via a pre-manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent to manufacture and/or import a new
chemical. The PMN includes information such as specific chemistry identity, use,
anticipated production volume, exposure and release information, and existing available
test data. The information is reviewed through the New Chemicals Program to determine
whether action is needed to prohibit or limit manufacturing, processing, or use of a
chemical.
2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions based on the PMN review phase. For
example, were the 8(e) submissions received: a) before the PMN notice was received by
EPA, b) during the PMN review process, or c) after the PMN review was completed?
3. Review of 8(e) data focusing on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was
completed.
4. Compare hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with the associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination.
6. Revise risk assessment to determine if there was an unreasonable risk based on
established risk assessment and risk management guidelines and whether current PMN
Review practices would have detected and prevented that risk.
Suitability: The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to
this measurement and therefore suitable for measurement purposes. This measure
supports the New Chemical program's goal to ensure that new chemicals introduced into
commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
This measure provides a suitable year to year comparison against this goal because
supporting data and analysis are conducted on an annual basis, directly linking to this
long-term goal.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008. Like the 2003 QMP, it
will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: Information developed in the course of measurement will be
presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to
technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the National Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Advisory Council (NPPTAC), external experts who offer advice,
information and recommendations to OPPT, provided comments on this measure.
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from
differences in the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for
example, OPPT cannot evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on
chemical identity. The review is also affected in some cases by a lack of available
electronic information. In particular the pre-1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard
copy and may have to be requested from the Federal Document Storage Center. This may
introduce some delays to the review process.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from
statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will review
all 8(e) submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted new
chemical review data, and not a sample of such submissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing the integrated,
electronic Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) system that will provide real time access to
prospective PMN review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent reduction from baseline year in cost of managing PMN submissions
through the Focus meeting as a percentage of baseline year cost (program
assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Databases: EPA will rely on several principal databases to facilitate
implementation of the TSCA Section 8(e) and new chemical submission efficiency
measures:
• Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS): CBITS allows
users to access basic identifying and status information on each hard copy 8(e)
notification and new chemical submission to EPA, track receipt of each hard copy
-------
submission as well as requests for copies of submissions or information therein,
and to obtain data on number of hard copy submissions and requests for copies
per fiscal year. CBITS is a paper system which will eventually be phased out in
favor of MTS database (see below).
• Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database: This is a new system that, when
applied to 8(e) notifications and new chemical submissions in FY 2008, will
enable users to receive, process, and store electronic submissions of 8(e)
notifications and new chemical submissions information, and accommodate
subsequent searches and retrievals performed by EPA or contractor staff. The
system will provide data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year
and the number of searches and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing
scanned documents.
Data Sources: The sources of data for this performance measure are the 8(e)
notifications and new chemical submissions and the information summarized in the
databases described above. No external data sources play a direct role in the calculation
of measurement results, although the 8(e) notifications often make reference to external
data sources in which the reported 8(e) information originally appeared.
Methods and Assumptions: The efficiency measure "Average cost of TSCA Section
8(e) processing and searches" is calculated by: (1) defining the baseline year (FY 2007)
and developing baseline information expressed as the average time required to conduct
8(e) processing and searches in the baseline year; (2) converting average time to average
cost measurements; (3) setting appropriate targets for outyears, reflecting increasing
levels of efficiency; and (4) conducting actual measurements for fiscal years beginning
with FY 2009, after electronic submissions, processing and searches begin. These steps
can be summarized individually as follows:
(1) Obtain baseline data: FY 2008 baseline data were obtained for each of five
distinct sub-measures that are combined additively to produce the single
efficiency measure described here. These sub-measures and the associated
average handling times for 8(e)'s are: (a) average time spent sorting mail for
8(e)'s in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC) - 5 minutes per
8(e); (b) average time spent processing 8(e)'s in the CBIC - 10 minutes per 8(e);
(c) average time searching the CBITS and/or MTS databases - 20 minutes per
8(e); (d) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s from the CBIC - 25 minutes per
8(e); and (e) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s off the shelf and replacing them
- 2 minutes per 8(e). Collectively, these sub-measures represent the complete
activity profile for 8(e) processing and searches. The time estimates are based on
interviews with key staff conducted by the program.
(2) Convert average time baseline to average cost: For sub-measures that
describe tasks performed by EPA staff, average time estimates have been
converted to average cost by taking the standard hourly rate for a biologist at
grade 14, step 1; dividing by 60 to express the hourly rate in minutes; and
multiplying the result by the average time estimate (in minutes), yielding the
average cost per 8(e). Similar calculations are performed for sub-measures that
-------
describe contractor tasks, except that the hourly rate is obtained from actual
experience under the applicable contract.
(3) Set targets for Fiscal years: The gradual expansion of electronic reporting and
scanning is the main factor driving the targeted improvement in the measure.
Target setting is based on what is considered reasonable and achievable. Targets
are expressed, preliminarily, as the expected percentage increase in electronic
submissions or scanned 8(e)s from the baseline fiscal year and the amount of time
required for handling of such materials.
(4) Conduct measurements: The final step in the measurement process is to
perform the actual measurements for specific fiscal years. This is done by
consulting the databases described earlier to determine the actual proportion of
submissions and searches/retrievals that are electronic and the proportion that are
non-electronic, and inserting these data into the appropriate average cost formula.
For instance, with respect to the average sorting time measure, one substitutes the
actual proportion of non-electronic submissions for the target of .95 and the actual
proportion of electronic submissions for the target of .05, leaving all other
numbers in the formula the same.
There are a number of facts and assumptions underlying the preceding methodology: (a)
Baseline 8(e) submissions and searches are all conducted non-electronically; (b) The
overall number of submissions and search requests will remain static over the three-year
period; (c) Possible increases in contractor and EPA staff costs are disregarded; and (d)
for the average time searching CBITS/MTS sub-measure, the cost of electronic searches
is proportional to search time (i.e., 20 minutes / 5 minutes = baseline cost divided by 4 =
$12.40/4 = $3.10). For the other sub-measures, the average time and average cost are
zero. Note: Item (a) can be considered a fact, while items (b)-(d) are assumptions.
The calculation is the nearly the same for new chemical submissions. Just substitute
"new chemical submissions" for "8(e)" above. The sub-measures and the associated
average handling times for new chemical submissions are slightly modified. They are:
(a) average time spent sorting and processing mail for new chemical submissions in the
Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC) - 35 minutes per new chemical
submission; and (b) average time searching and retrieving new chemical submissions -
45 minutes per new chemical submission. Collectively, these sub-measures represent the
complete activity profile for new chemical submission processing and searches. The time
estimates are based on interviews with key staff conducted by the program.
The performance measures are suitable efficiency measures because average cost takes
into account all expenses involved. The sub-measures exhaust all activities which
contribute to process and the associated costs. The data collected and analyzed represent
the costs of 8(e) and new chemical processing and are the most acceptable data available
for this measure. All data meet the QMP requirements and outcomes are reviewed by
OPPT senior management.
Suitability: The indicators selected are suitable and appropriate because they reflect
expected cost savings stemming from automation of the new chemical submission and
-------
8(e) notification and review process. This represents EPA's progress toward its goal of
improving program efficiency.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," November 2008. Like the 2003 QMP, it
will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Review: Information developed in the course of measurement will be
presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to
technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight.
Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the
information relied upon in developing or reporting these measures.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. The measures do not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As mentioned above, the development and
deployment of the new MITS (Manage Toxic Substances) database will enable users to
track electronic submissions and handling of 8(e) and new chemical information. The
system will provide data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the
number of searches and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing scanned
documents.
References: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Conduct 400 Risk Management Plan audits and inspections
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database
for the number of risk management plan (RMP) audits.
Data Source: OSWER's Office of Emergency Management implements the Risk
Management Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r). Facilities are required to
prepare Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and submit them to EPA. In turn, EPA
Headquarters (HQ) provides appropriate data to each Region and delegated State so that
they have the RMP data for their geographical area. The Regions and delegated States
conduct audits. About ten States have received delegation to operate the RMP program.
These delegated States report audit numbers to the appropriate EPA Regional office so it
can maintain composite information on RMP audits.
Methods and Assumptions: Regions enter data into the Agency's Annual Commitment
System. HQ prepares an annual report. Data are count data and not open to
interpretation.
-------
Suitability: The sub objective's goal is to reduce chemical risks at facilities and in
communities. Under the authority of section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, the Chemical
Accident Prevention Provisions require facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute,
or store certain chemicals to develop a Risk Management Program, prepare a Risk
Management Plan (RMP), and submit the RMP to EPA The purpose of this performance
measure is to ensure that facilities that are required to have risk management plans do
indeed have plans and are available in case of an incident.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, and
reviewed at the time of Regional data entry. Data are regularly compared to similar data
from the past to identify potential errors.
Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters'
personnel.
Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data
provided by state programs and the EPA Regional offices.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of countries completing phase out of leaded gasoline
• Number of countries introducing low sulfur in fuels
Performance Database: UNEP Partnership Clearinghouse; This performance measure
tracks the number of countries that have phased out lead in gasoline. EPA works with the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners in the global
Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles to document the phase out of leaded gasoline
and the reduction of sulfur levels in fuels worldwide. UNEP manages the Partnership
Clearinghouse, which tracks the status of lead phase-out efforts and the status of sulfur
reduction efforts in each country. The Partnership Clearinghouse also documents and
verifies each country's implementation of lead phase out and sulfur reduction programs.
The Partnership's data on lead phase-out can be found on the Partnership website at:
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfleaded. The Partnership's data on sulfur
levels in fuels, by country, can be found on the Partnership website at:
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfsulphur
Data Source: The United Nations Environment Programme serves as the Clearinghouse
for the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and maintains a database of the status of
country lead-phase out. Information from the database is posted on the Partnership
-------
website and updated periodically by UNEP — at least every 6 months. UNEP collects
the data from public and private sector partners and contacts government and industry
experts in each country for verification before the data are posted. This data collection
and cross-checking provide the best currently available information on country lead
phase-out status and levels of sulfur.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There currently is no available database on
international leaded gasoline sales data or market penetration of alternative fuels, nor is
there any international database on sulfur levels in fuels. Because of this gap, the
Partnership made the decision to track the number of countries that have phased out lead
and reduced sulfur because the data are more easily verifiable. The Partnership has
recently added the capacity to provide summary date from a commercially available fuel
quality database to verify lead and sulfur levels in fuels. The database has limited
country coverage. The samples are taken using internationally-acceptable quality control
and assurance procedures. The data will be used to verify the PCFV database.
QA/QC Procedures: Experts at the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles verify the
information in the Partnership Clearinghouse by contacting key people from industry and
government within each country. The fuel quality database used to verify lead and sulfur
levels in fuels uses internationally-acceptable quality control and assurance procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: There currently is no available database on leaded gasoline sales data
or market penetration of alternative fuels. The Partnership made the decision to track the
number of countries that have phased out lead and reduced sulfur in fuels, because the
data are more easily verifiable. Fuel changes and lead phase- out are implemented in
different ways in different countries, mostly by legislation. But having the legislation in
place does not mean that lead has been eliminated from gasoline. Many countries have
set dates for lead phase-out and sulfur reduction; however the Partnership tracks actual
progress toward implementation. . The fuel quality database has limited country
coverage and represents spot-sampling of fuels, not a statistically valid average of fuel
quality in a country. The data will be used in conjunction with other available
information to update the PCFV database and verify progress under the Partnership.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: For additional information on the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles,
see the Partnership website at http://www.unep.org/PCFV
For more information concerning the database for phase-out of leaded gasoline, see
-------
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#leaded
For additional information on sulfur levels, see
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#sulphur
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Brownfields properties assessed (program assessment measure)
• Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
• Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields
properties, (program assessment measure)
• Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse (program assessment measure)
• Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars (program
assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange
System (ACRES) tracks the performance information for the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include, but are not limited to:
Property Acreage
Assessment Completion Date
Cleanup Required
Cleanup Completion Date
Institutional Controls Required
Institutional Controls in Place/Date
Engineering Controls Required
Engineering Controls in Place/date
Funding Leveraged
Jobs Leveraged
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY
2010 PAR; data will be available for the FY 2011 PAR.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm) prepared by assessment, cleanup,
revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program cooperative agreement award recipients. Information on Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TEA) is collected from EPA Regions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Cooperative agreement recipients report
performance data in quarterly reports and property profile forms. Data are reviewed by
Regional EPA grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Given the
-------
reporting cycle and the data entry/QA period, there is typically a several month data lag
for ACRES data.
Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields
Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields RLF Grantees, Regional TBAs, and State and Tribal 128
Voluntary Response Program Grantees all contribute towards these performance
measures. "Number of Brownfields properties assessed" is an aggregate of assessments
completed with Assessment Grant funding, Regional TEA funding, and State and Tribal
128 Voluntary Response Program funding. "Number of Brownfields properties cleaned
up" is an aggregate of properties cleaned up by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and
State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees. "Number of Acres Made
Ready for Reuse" is an aggregate of acreage assessed that does not require cleanup and
acreage cleaned up as reported by Assessment Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields
Assessments, Cleanup Grantees, RLF Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary
Response Program Grantees for which any required institutional controls are in place.
"Number of cleanup and redevelopment jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs
leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program Grantees. "Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields properties" is the aggregate of funds leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup,
RLF, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees.
QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are
reviewed by EPA Regional grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate
interpretation of performance measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with
detailed data trends analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program has updated, launched and
phased-in an online reporting form in FY 2009 to improve data collection and to expand
the community of grantees completing the form.
References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Investing in Partnership,
Possibility and People: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields
Program", Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, November 2005,
http://www.epa.gov^ownfields/news/stake_report.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Assessment Pilots/Grants", Office
of Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov^ownfields/assessment_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Pilots/Grants", Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Job Training Pilots/Grants", Office
of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm
(accessed August 15, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Cleanup Grants", Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov^ownfields/cleanup_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the Mexican
border area that lacked access to drinking water in 2003 (program
assessment annual measure)
• Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
(program assessment annual measure)
• Loading of Biochemical Oxygen Demand removed (million pounds/year)
from the US-Mexico border area since 2003
• Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal
expenditures) (program assessment efficiency measure)
o The program is currently reviewing alternative efficiency measures.
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported
quarterly by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank). Data fields are population served by and
homes connected to potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems
resulting from the completion of certified projects.
Data Source: Data sources to establish the baseline include U.S. population figures from
the 2000 U.S. Census and Mexican population figures from CONAGUA. Data on
population served and homes connected by "certified" water/wastewater projects are
estimated and reported by BECC and NADBank and reflected in EPA project completion
schedules for certified projects.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summation of population served and homes
connected by "certified" water/wastewater projects from BECC and NADBank as
reflected in EPA project completion schedules.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA Headquarters is responsible for evaluation of reports from
BECC and NADBank on drinking water and wastewater sanitation projects. Regional
representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border projects
-------
(BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the
accuracy of information reported.
Data Quality Reviews: Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and
financing entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of
projects underway to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: The error estimate is the same rate accepted by the U.S. Census.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1990). Institute National de Estadistica, Geografia y
Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990).
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North
American Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study
areas (program assessment measure)
• Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored (program assessment
efficiency measure)
• Number of acres restored and improved under the 5-star, NEP, 319 and great
waterbody programs (cumulative)
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed
a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and
restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used to calculate
annual performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2000 for
the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights
habitat loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat
type http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This allows EPA to
provide a visual means of communicating NEP performance and habitat protection and
restoration progress to a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers.
Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans, which report on NEP
achievements during the previous year, annual progress and State of the Bay reports, and
-------
implementation tracking materials are used to document the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected. Each year, the NEPs and Regions validate the data. Then the
NEPs input them into a database NEPORT which is managed by EPA. EPA annually
aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire
Program. EPA is confident that the annually-reported data are as accurate as possible. In
addition, every three years EPA conducts a program evaluation of each NEPs progress
implementing its management plan; the teams conducting those evaluations review the
three-year habitat data as part of the comprehensive evaluation process.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
The term "restored and protected" is a general term that describes a range of activities and
is interpreted broadly to include: creation of habitat, acquisition of sites for the purpose
of protection, conservation easements and deed restrictions, increasing submerged
aquatic vegetation coverage, increasing the number of permanent shellfish bed openings,
and increasing the amount of anadromous fish habitat. There is not necessarily a direct
correlation between the number of habitat acres restored and protected and ecosystem
health, nor is habitat quantity or quality the only indicator of ecosystem health. But,
habitat acreage is an important measure of on-the-ground progress made toward meeting
the EPA annual goal of protecting and restoring habitat in NEP study areas. EPA has
defined and provided examples of protection and restoration activities for purposes of
tracking and reporting measures (see citation for the PIVOT website in references
below.)
The NEP "Habitat Acres Protected or Restored" efficiency measure is calculated by
dividing the total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres
protected or restored. The measure is based on habitat data collected by the NEPs as
described above and reported in the annual habitat measure, and the total amount of
program dollars. That amount is: (1) the sum of the NEP/Coastal budget (including the
additional funds for Long Island Sound and Puget Sound (2) the Marine Pollution budget,
and (3) the program match as reported by the NEPs.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their
own reports and from data supplied by other partner agencies/organizations that directly
engage in habitat protection and restoration. EPA requests that the NEPs follow EPA
guidance to prepare their reports. The EPA Regions and Headquarters then confirms the
individual NEP and national totals. EPA actions are consistent with data quality and
management policies.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews have been conducted.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: (1) information that may be reported
inconsistently across the NEPs because they may interpret the meaning of "protection and
restoration" differently; (2) acreage amounts may be miscalculated or incorrectly
reported, and (3) acreage may be double-counted i.e., the same parcel may also be
counted more than one partner, or the same parcel may be counted more than once
because it has been restored several times over a period of years. Also habitat restored
-------
and protected may not directly correlate to overall improvements in the health of that
habitat (particularly in the year of reporting); rather, habitat acreage protected and
restored is only one indicator of habitat health and of on-the-ground progress made by the
NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA developed an on-line reporting system-
NEPORT—that makes it possible for NEPs and EPA to track habitat projects. Also,
NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where possible) for each protection and
restoration project. These data are then mapped to highlight where projects are located in
each NEP study area. Not only does this help each NEP and EPA precisely identify
project sites, but it also makes it possible for NEPs and EPA to validate NEPORT data,
and highlights where different partners may be double counting acreage.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by each NEP, is displayed numerically, graphically, and by habitat type in the
Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT). PIVOT data are
publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2002) is available on the
Intranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/informationresources/quality/qualitymanage.html
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of goal achieved in restoring, protecting or enhancing 240 acres of
coastal habitat from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) has
developed a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat
protection and restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used
to calculate annual performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported
since 2000 for the National Estuary Program (NEP) (results are calculated on a fiscal year
basis). The EPA Long Island Sound Office (LISO) requires the states of New York and
Connecticut, which are Long Island Sound Study Management Conference partners, to
collect and report acres of habitat restored and protected as required by the NEP. The
states use internal project tracking systems to gather, summarize and report restoration
and protection data to LISO, which, in turn, enters the data into the OWOW habitat
information system.
Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements
made in the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking
materials, are used to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected.
EPA is confident that the data presented are as accurate as possible. The EPA Long
Island Sound Office (LISO) reviews the information prior to reporting. In addition, EPA
LISO conducts regular reviews of state habitat restoration work to help ensure that
-------
information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact
being achieved.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the
habitat reported or of the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground
progress. Habitat acreage does not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat
quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality) represent the only indicator of ecosystem
health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an important surrogate and a measure of
on-the-ground progress made toward EPA's annual performance goal of habitat
protection and restoration for LIS. EPA has defined and provided examples of protection
and restoration activities for purposes of measure tracking and reporting (see citation for
the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected" is a general term used
to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include created areas,
protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed restriction,
submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings, and
anadromous fish habitat increases.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the state and federal staff of the LISS
Habitat Restoration Team based on their own reports and from data supplied by other
partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible for implementing the action
resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The LISS staff are requested to follow
EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA actions are
consistent with data quality and management policies.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews have been conducted yet.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information that may be reported
inconsistently (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration
definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated or misreported, and acreage that may be
double counted (same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency or
need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring the number of acres of
habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of
the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure of on-
the-ground progress made by the NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The LISS has developed a new data system to report
and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This database is publicly available on
the LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitarestoration/projects/Search.aspx. The
database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration projects:
Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type, Targeted
Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique, Acres, Miles,
Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status , Funding Sources, Project
-------
Partners, Project Completed, Completion Date. The site locations are also mapped to
highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area.
An on-line reporting system—NEPORT— has been developed for the NEPs' use that
assists in tracking habitat projects. EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data fields
with those of the National Estuarine Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the EPA's
wetlands net gain goal.
References: See V&V for National Estuary Program for PIVOT and NEPORT.
Results of Long Island Sound habitat restoration efforts are documented in the biennial
reports, Sound Health., and Protection and Progress, and the annual LISS Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan Implementation Tracking Report, available at:
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmfeeports. The database of habitat
restoration projects is publicly available on the LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-equalized (TE) point source
nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146
TE Ibs/day.
Performance Database: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit
compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include:
major permittee self-reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMR); data on permittee compliance status; data on state and EPA inspection and
enforcement response. The states of Connecticut and New York are required, as part
of their delegated NPDES permit programs, to periodically monitor and test effluent
for appropriate pollutants, including nitrogen, complete DMRs and enter this
information into PCS.
Data Source: Permittee self-reported DMR data are entered into PCS by state offices,
which are delegated to implement the NPDES program. PCS automatically compares the
entered DMR data with the pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES
permit. This automated process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in
excess of permitted levels. Facilities are designated as being in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) when reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above
permitted levels for toxic pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of
conventional pollutants. PCS contains additional data obtained through reports and on-
site inspections, which are used to determine SNC, including: non-effluent limit
violations such as unauthorized bypasses; unpermitted discharges; and pass through of
pollutants which cause water quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-
submission of DMRs; submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state
or federal enforcement orders.
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to
compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also
calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether
toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached. Nitrogen waste load
allocations (WLA) are specified in the December 2000 A Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long
Island Sound that was prepared by the states of New York and Connecticut and approved
by EPA in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The TMDL
nitrogen WLAs are included in the NPDES (state-delegated) permits issued by the states
for dischargers to Long Island Sound.
QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform
to EPA's PCS standards for point source data. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
procedures are in place for PCS data entry. State and Regional PCS data entry staff are
required to take PCS training courses. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared
for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for ensuring timely
input, review and certification of PCS information.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in PCS is required by policy to be
reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. SNC data
in PCS are reviewed quarterly.
Data Limitations: Legal requirements for permittees to self-report data on compliance
with effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and
accuracy. EPA monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and data
entry quality. National trends over the past several years show an average of 94% of
DMRs is entered timely and complete. Where data entry problems are observed, OECA
works directly with regions and states to improve performance, and in limited
circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant resources to help regions and states
correct problems.
Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, in classification, documentation or
mistakes in the processing of data.
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980's and has
undergone periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a
modernized data system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and
analytical approaches. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated
Compliance Information System - NPDES), a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 when eleven states began using the system; seven other states
will be migrated to the new system in August. During phased implementation of ICIS-
NPDES across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-NPDES will be used to generate
-------
SNC data. Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will be the sole source of NPDES
SNC data.
References: Nitrogen TMDL:
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325604&depNav_GID=1654
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmfeeports
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of goal achieved in reopening 50 river and stream miles to
diadromous fish passage from the 2008 baseline of 124 miles [Long Island
Sound]
Performance Database: The LISS has developed a new data system to report and
track habitat restoration data from the LISS. The database is publically available on
the LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx. The
database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration
projects: Site Name, Project Title, town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat
Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration
Technique, Acres, Miles, Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status,
Funding Sources, Project Partners, Project Completed, Completion Date. The site
locations are also mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS
study area.
Currently, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation track and report fish passage
projects and the additional miles of river and stream corridors reopened as a result.
The states submit these data to the EPA Long Island Sound Office.
Data Source: The Long Island Sound Study has established a Habitat Restoration
Team (HRT) comprised of federal, state, and local agency staff and private
organizations. Public/Private projects to reopen river and stream corridors to fish
passage are tracked by the work group coordinators (staff in the states of Connecticut
and New York). In addition, the EPA Long Island Sound Office conducts regular
reviews of state habitat restoration work to help ensure that information provided in
these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved. Long
Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration annual reports on projects are made available
at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitat/index.htm
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Long Island Sound Study goal is to
reopen additional miles of riverine migratory corridor. For each project, the location
(state, town), stream name, cause of degradation, project description, miles restored,
-------
targeted fish species, implementation partners, and project funding are tracked. Miles
restored are calculated based on the length of stream that is reopened to fish by
eliminating the obstacle. Each fish passage project is field verified.
QA/QC Procedures: Stream miles are considered reopened after fish are observed
passing through the obstacle.
Data Quality Review: Each project report is reviewed by the habitat restoration
coordinators, Habitat Restoration Team, and the EPA Long Island Sound Office.
Data Limitations: The stream corridor is considered reopened when anadromous
fish are observed passing through the obstacle. The data do not assess the success
rate offish passage or the use of the upstream habitat.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: As discussed in the performance database section, the
LISS has developed a new data system to report and track habitat restoration data
from the LISS. The database is publically available on the LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx
The database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration
projects: Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat
Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration
Technique Acres, Miles, Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status,
Funding Sources, Project Partners, Project Completed Date. The site locations are
also mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area.
References: Long Island Sound Study, Sound Health 2008 Environmental Indicators:
www.longislandsoundstudy.net/indicators/index.htm on Habitat Protection/River
Miles Restored and Coastal Habitat Restored. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound
Office.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, states and tribes, achieve no net loss
of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program
Performance Database: Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404
program has been no net loss of wetlands.
Historically, the Corps collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its
Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. RAMS
was designed to be an administrative aid in tracking permits, this it lacked many of the
fields necessary to adequately track important information regarding wetland losses and
gains. Also, the database was modified differently for each of the 38 Corps Districts
-------
making national summaries difficult. Furthermore, the database was also proprietary
making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers. These and other
limitations in methods used for data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in
difficulties in drawing reliable conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404
program. To improve tracking of wetland gains and losses in the Section 404 permit
program, in 2007 with support from EPA, the Corps deployed a new standardized
nationwide permit tracking system known as ORM2 (Operation and maintenance
business information link, Regulatory Module)
Data Source: ORM2 is the data source for this performance measure. Data input is
conducted by Corps Regulatory Program staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: ORM2 is the definitive source of data
regarding wetland and other aquatic resource impacts authorized pursuant to the Section
404 permit program. ORM2 was designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation
• Type and quantity of mitigation by method (i.e., restoration, creation,
enhancement, or preservation)
• Type and quantity of mitigation by mechanism (i.e., mitigation bank, in-lieu fee
mitigation, or permittee-responsible mitigation)
• Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in
acres)
• Spatial tracking via GIS enhancements for both impact and mitigation sites
(planned)
• Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation
site (credits) if assessment tool is available and applied
• Mitigation banks via the inclusion of a comprehensive module for tracking and
managing mitigation banks known as the Regional Internet-based Bank
Information Tracking System (RIB ITS). With EPA's assistance RIB ITS has been
deployed in approximately 18 Corps Districts.
QA/QC Procedures: After the close of the fiscal year, the Corps begins compiling
national impact and mitigation data. As part of the compilation process the Corps carries
out a detailed review of the data. Any data anomalies are investigated with the subject
Corps District Office responsible for the source data. Following this review and vetting
process, national summaries of impact and mitigation data are shared with EPA.
Data Quality Reviews: Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a
critical evaluation of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the
restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland
losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other waters under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The NAS determined that available data was insufficient to determine
-------
whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net loss of either
wetland area or function. The NAS added that available data suggested that the program
was not meeting its no net loss goal. Among its suite of recommendations, the NAS
noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked in a
national database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance
measures for data entry. These critical reviews helped create the impetus of the
development of ORM2.
Data Limitations: FY 08 was the first full year in which the Corps' 38 District offices
used ORM2 to track activities in the Section 404 Permit Program, thus there was a great
deal of system debugging, training, and trouble-shooting. Also, while ORM2 has a great
deal of functionality, the Corps is phasing in the requirements to utilize all of the ORM2
data entry fields. Overtime, as the system is completely debugged, users become more
proficient, and data entry requirements expand, ORM2 will provide increasingly more
accurate and robust data regarding wetland gains and loses in the Section 404 Permit
program. In addition to these general data limitations, the Corps is currently evaluating
solutions to a key mitigation data reporting challenge. Wetland Impacts are tracked in
acres. Similarly all the mitigation provided by permitee-responsible mitigation and some
of the mitigation provided by in lieu fee programs and mitigation banks tracks is tracked
in acres. However, some mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs may track their
mitigation as "credits" which are usually based on a function or condition assessment
protocol and there may not be a one to one relationship between a credit and an acre. For
reporting purposes, it would be more efficient if all impacts and mitigation could be
reported in acres. The Corps and EPA are exploring ways to convert these "credits" to
"acres" to facilitate this reporting. However, in light of the large number of different
function/condition assessment protocols used nationwide at mitigation banks and in-lieu
fee programs, identifying a simple solution is proving challenging.
Error Estimate: Not applicable
References:
Information regarding ORM2 (Operation and maintenance business information link,
Regulatory Molule) can be found at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/aqua/vol3-l.pdf
Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website:
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW_WELCOME.NAVIGATION_PAG
E?tmp_next_page= 114145
National Academy of Sciences (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the
Clean Water Act. Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
• Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of
PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) ^see reference #1 below). This program collects
and monitors contaminants in Great Lakes fish at alternating locations throughout the
Great Lakes Basin; fish are collected at one set of sites during even years and at another
set in odd years. It began with the collection of data in Lake Michigan in 1972 and the
additional lakes were added in 1976. In FY2011, the database will contain quality
reviewed field data from fish collected in 2009 and all quality reviewed analytical data
for fish collected between 1972 and 2009. Samples collected in 2009 are expected to be
able to be available for reporting in 2011. Data are reported on a calendar year basis.
Data Source: GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish
monitoring program. The Great Lakes States and Tribes assist with fish collection.
Previous cooperating organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of
selected organic contaminants in Great Lakes open water fish. The Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program monitors the potential exposure to contaminant concentrations for
wildlife.
The GLFMP was created to: (1) determine time trends in contaminant concentrations, (2)
assess impacts of contaminants on the fishery using fish as biomonitors, and (3) assess
potential risk to the wildlife that consume contaminated fish. It includes data from ten
600-700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish in each
composite) from each of the lakes. Since sufficient lake trout are not found in Lake Erie,
data for 400 - 500 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used for that Lake.
All GLFMP data are independently reviewed for quality consideration prior to loading
into the Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA). Included in GLENDA are
flags for each data point that can be used to evaluate the quality of the data.
Each Great Lake has unique environments with distinct growth rates, food webs, and
chemical integrity. For this reason, a direct comparison of annual concentrations between
each lake and sub-basin is not appropriate. However, a cumulative basin-wide percent
long-term trend can be determined on all years data using an exponential decrease
function, starting with 1990 data as the baseline. The variability in the data caused by the
intra-lake uniqueness of each lake trout (and walleye) community confounds trend
analyses on shorter timeframes. All years of data from all lakes are plotted on the same
graph, with each year containing 5 data points. An exponential decrease is then found for
the entire data set and the long-term cumulative percent decrease is calculated using the
rate constant of the best exponential fit line and the total number of years elapsed since
2000. Cumulative percent decline equals l-eA[(-rate constant)(# of years elapsed since
-------
2000)]. The year 2000 is selected as the baseline for this measure in the Action Plan to
illustrate a more relevant measurable change on an annual basis in the long-term
cumulative percent decline. The year 2000 is also more representative of the current
environmental condition in the Great Lakes, but does not provide enough statistical
significance to determine long-term trends from. The calculated cumulative percent
decrease can then be compared to the reduction target to determine if it has been met.
GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for reporting and
comparison purposes
9
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place
(see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. The
Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant
program is approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The revised draft
field sampling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management
Plan was approved by the GLNPO QA Officer in July 2008
(http://epa.gov/greatlakes/monitoring/fish/reports/quality.pdf).
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below).
Specific highlights relative to this indicator include: "QA requirements are systematically
planned using the DQO process. Major programs such as the Open Lakes Monitoring
(Lake Guardian sampling activities), Open Lakes Organics Monitoring, the Biology
Monitoring, the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and the Legacy Act program were
exemplary in systematic planning and documenting QA requirements. " (4) GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency
Quality standards.
Data Limitations: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program data are not well-suited to
portray localized changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or even
year sites) can be compared to data collected from the same site. In addition, only very
general comparisons can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes. A recent
review of the odd year Open Lake Trend Monitoring in Lake Erie data indicate an
increased variability in the data between the years of 1999 and 2003 because during those
years several individual samples (fish) fell outside of the desired size range leading to a
higher or lower than average mean sample size for the composite.
Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish contaminant program was to
detect a 20% change in each measured contaminant concentration between two
consecutively sampled periods at each site. Based on changing environmental
conditions, the data quality objective has been tentatively revised to have an 80%
probability to detect a 10% change per year, over three to four sampling periods, at the
95% confidence level. An official outside peer review of this new data quality objective
and associated data was held on December 11-12, 2007. This peer review assisted in
providing a data quality objective and a recommendation to consider dropping the game
fish fillet element of the program.
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system
with enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA.
GLNPO has awarded a new consortium grant for these analyses that allows researchers
from three different universities to specialize in their individual areas of analytical
expertise and provide more timely data of a higher quality.
References: Supporting Program Documentation: All journal publications relevant to
the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, final project reports, and quality
documentation can be found at the GLFMP website,
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
1. " The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For
Interstate Environmental Monitoring:'' September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/
3. "Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Sample Collection Activities'', Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_Q APP_082504.pdf
4. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of'2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern.
(program assessment measure)
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed within the Areas of
Concern (AOCs) located entirely within the United States and the AOCs that are shared
by both the United States and Canada. Results through September 2011 will be reported
in 2011.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (UC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Restoration of U.S. or Binational Areas of
Concern will ultimately be measured by the removal of all beneficial use impairments,
leading to de-listing of all of the U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern by 2025. There
were once a total of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern: 26 located entirely within the
United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and 5 shared by both countries. There
were thus 31 United States or Binational Areas of Concern; however, with the de-listing
of the Oswego River AOC, only 30 United States or Binational Areas of Concern
-------
remained at the end of Fiscal Year 2006. Remedial Action Plans for each of these Areas
of Concern address one or up to 14 beneficial use impairments associated with these
areas. At the end of Fiscal Year 2006, there was a total identified universe of 261
beneficial use impairments reported in the United States or Binational Areas of Concern.
This measure tracks cumulative progress against those beneficial use impairments. An
impaired beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity
of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following:
-restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
-tainting offish and wildlife flavor
-degradation offish wildlife populations
-fish tumors or other deformities
-bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
-degradation of benthos
-restrictions on dredging activities
-eutrophication or undesirable algae
-restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems
-beach closings
-degradation of aesthetics
-added costs to agriculture or industry
-degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
-loss offish and wildlife habitat
Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
The States work with the local stakeholders in the Areas of Concern to develop delisting
criteria for the impaired BUIs. By 2009, all of the Areas of Concern had developed their
delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting BUIs. The
BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored and can be delisted. After
all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be delisted.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place
(see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given
"outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see reference #2)
below. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References:
-------
1. GLNPO maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments
in office files.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. " EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. " Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in
the Great Lakes (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two
different formats. The first is a matrix that shows the annual and cumulative totals of
contaminated sediment that were remediated in the Great Lakes basin in the reporting
year and from 1997 for each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with
sediment remediation. The second format depicts the yearly and cumulative totals on a
calendar year basis graphically. These databases are reported approximately one year
after the completion of work, thus, results from calendar year 2010 remediation will be
reported in FY 2011.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and
Federal project managers across the Great Lakes region, who conduct and coordinate
contaminated sediments work, including appropriately characterizing and managing
navigational dredging of contaminated sediments. These data are obtained directly from
the project manager via an information fact sheet the project manager completes for any
site in the Great Lakes basin that has performed any remedial work on contaminated
sediment. The project manager also indicates whether an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) was used in the collection of data at the site. GLNPO does not
accept unsolicited data without adequate assurance that quality system documentation
was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: GLNPO began tracking sediment remediation
actions in the Great Lakes Basin in 1997. At that time, GLNPO's "best guess" of the
total number of cubic yards that required remediation in the Great Lakes AOCs was 40
million. In 2004, the U.S. Policy Committee tasked the Great Lakes States with
establishing a more comprehensive list of sites requiring remediation in the entire Great
Lakes Basin (AOCs and non-AOCs), using best professional judgment to estimate the
sediment volumes to be remediated. Using this list of estimated sediment remediation
needs created by Great Lakes States in 2004, and sediment remediation estimates
reported by Project Managers for calendar years 1997 through 2004, GLNPO estimated
the 1997 baseline, or "universe," for contaminated sediments requiring remediation to be
46.5 million cubic yards.
-------
The data collected to track sediment remediation in the Great Lakes show the amount of
sediment remediated (removed, capped, undergoing natural recovery, or other) for that
year, the amount of sediment remediated in prior years, and the amount of sediment
remaining to be addressed for a particular site. This format is suitable for year-to-year
comparisons for individual sites. GLNPO sums the volume estimates as provided by the
individual project managers, but then rounds the totals. For reporting purposes, the
yearly volume total is rounded to the nearest one thousand cubic yards and the
cumulative volume total is rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project
managers to provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during
remediation of contaminated sediment. This information is used to decide if the data
provided by the project manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an
approved QAPP was not used, sediment data would not likely be reported by GLNPO,
unless GLNPO finds that alternative information is available that provides sufficient
quality documentation for the project and associated data. This approach allows GLNPO
to use best professional judgment and flexibility in reporting data from any cases where
there was not a QAPP, but (a) the remedial action is noteworthy and (b) the project was
conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best practices and operating
procedures.
The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of sediment
remediated at individual sites as provided by the project managers. The individual site
project managers are responsible for completing the data request forms, reviewing draft
figures to verify that the GLNPO project manager transferred the data correctly, and
providing any updated or improved estimates. It is GLNPO's responsibility to determine
if the data are usable based upon the information sheet provided by the project managers.
GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass and volume estimates due to the variability in
how to calculate them. GLNPO ensures that the estimates provided make sense for the
site, and that all estimates are reported in the same units. GLNPO management and
Sediment Team members review the data, in the graphic and matrix formats, prior to
reporting. GLNPO's Sediment Team works closely with partners and has confidence in
those who provide data for the summary statistics. This familiarity with partners and
general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to detect mistakes or
questionable data.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to being
released. Data quality review procedures are outlined in the QAPP referenced below.
GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding" evaluations in
previous peer and management reviews. (See reference # 5 below). Specific highlights
from this review relative to this indicator include: "Across GLNPO, assessment of the
quality of existing data and documentation of the quality of existing data for intended use
is a standard practice. This is commendable as the Agency is still attempting to define
requirements for usability existing data. " GLNPO has implemented all recommendations
from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards.
-------
Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used as
a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes Basin. Many
of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers. For
specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to provide additional
information.
Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be
viewed as qualitative data since a specific error estimate is not able to be calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in
place.
References:
1. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance Project Plan for "Great Lakes Sediment
Remediation Project Summary Support." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National
Program Office files, June 2008.
2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Graphics." Unpublished - in Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets".
Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files
5. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. " Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
6. "Indicator 3: Sediment Contamination." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National
Program Office files.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Cost per cubic yard of contaminated sediments remediated (cumulative)
(program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation volumes and costs are
compiled for all Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) projects. As all GLLA projects are
managed by GLNPO, project volumes and costs are generally available within 2-3
months of project completion. This database is updated with cost and volume numbers at
the completion of each GLLA sediment clean-up project.
-------
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data for all the GLLA projects. At
the completion of each project a hydrographic survey is conducted that provides accurate
volumes for dredged/remediated sediments at all GLLA projects. This information is
collected using an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All GLLA projects
require a QAPP prior to conducting work at the site. GLNPO does not accept data
without adequate assurance that a QAPP was in place and the reporters of the data are not
likely to be biased. Following the completion of a project, a final report is developed that
includes information on dredged/remediated sediment volumes. Also, at the close of
each project a final accounting is conducted to provide accurate final cost estimates.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This measure allows comparison of the actual
cost of remediating Great Lakes contaminated sediments (pursuant to the Great Lakes
Legacy Act) to a threshold cost of $200 per cubic yard. The target is achieved when the
actual cost of contaminated sediment remediation (cumulative) pursuant to the Legacy
Act is less than or equal to $200 per cubic yard. The program does not anticipate that
actual costs per cubic yard would decrease each year, particularly since project costs are
expected to increase as they become more complicated and disposal costs increase in
future years.
The estimated sediment remediation cost target of $200 per cubic yard has been
determined using best professional judgment. Reference points include a 2004 effort by
the U.S. Great Lakes Policy Committee and a January 2007 paper on Environmental
Dredging Costs analyzing 64 completed environmental dredging projects.
Targets and results will be reported on a calendar year basis. The program will use total
funding as the basis of this measure, but will also track federal and non-federal dollars.
Final project costs and the quantity of cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be
calculated using cumulative numbers.
Data are collected to track the amount of sediment remediated and project cost. Projects
are not included in the database until they are completed; partial project information is
not reported for this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a QA Manager who is responsible for approval of the
QAPP for all GLLA projects. A QAPP is required for each GLLA project and an
ongoing draft of a Quality Management Plan for the GLLA is used as an overall quality
management guide. Part of this site-specific QAPP includes information on the
hydrographic surveys used to determine volume estimates for each project. EPA
contractors oftentimes accompany the surveying crew to ensure all procedures are
followed. This information is typically made available approximately 2-3 months
following project completion.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to being
released. GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see Reference #4 below).
-------
GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies
with Agency Quality Standards.
Data Limitations: The data generated from this efficiency measure should be used as an
indicator of the general trend in the costs of sediment remediation under the Great Lakes
Legacy Act.
Error Estimate: A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The recent GLNPO Quality Management Review of
GLNPO from July of 2006 highlighted the following improvements:
"Management of the Great Lakes Legacy program is exemplary. Ensuring
conformance with EPA's quality requirements was evident in the creative
approach to planning and overseeing quality throughout the life cycle of the
project. The draft 2005 Quality Implementation and Management Plan is
comprehensive. QA plans reviewed were detailed and appropriately approved.
Post project meetings with EPA, state partners and local advisory councils to
review project with focus on detailing lessons learned is a best practice. Data
Quality Assessment to determine opportunities for improvement is a critical
component of the QA Project Plan. The project officers are to be commended for
the documented life cycle management for the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program.
(4)
References:
1. Estimates of Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Needs. U.S. Great Lakes Policy
Committee. January 11, 2005. Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
2. Estes, T.J. 2007. Environmental Dredging Project Costs—The Mystery. The
Mystique, The Muddle. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments.
3. Tuchman, M and Alexander, M. 2007. Remediation of the Black Lagoon, Trenton,
Michigan, Great Lakes Legacy Program. Draft Report.
4. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions
necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative)
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative number of management actions (including sediment remediation and habitat
restoration) that take place to achieve beneficial use impairment (BUI) targets at the
-------
Areas of Concern (AOCs) located solely within the United States (25) and the ones
shared with Canada (5). Results through September 2011 will be reported in 2011.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the
relevant community groups at the AOCs, other interested groups, the US Department of
State and the International Joint Commission (UC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Restoration of U.S. or Binational AOCs will
ultimately be measured by the removal of all BUIs, leading to de-listing of all of the U.S.
or Binational AOCs by 2025. There were once a total of 43 Great Lakes AOCs: 26
located entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and 5 shared
by both countries. There were thus 31 United States or Binational AOCs; however, with
the de-listing of the Oswego River AOC, 30 United States or Binational AOCs remained
at the end of Fiscal Year 2006. Remedial Action Plans (RAPS) for each of these AOCs
address one or up to 14 BUIs associated with these areas.
This measure tracks the number of reasonable and realistic management actions that
could take place in order to show cumulative progress to remove those BUIs. An
impaired beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity
of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following:
-restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
-tainting offish and wildlife flavor
-degradation offish wildlife populations
-fish tumors or other deformities
-bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
-degradation of benthos
-restrictions on dredging activities
-eutrophication or undesirable algae
-restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems
-beach closings
-degradation of aesthetics
-added costs to agriculture or industry
-degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
-loss offish and wildlife habitat
Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
The States work with the local stakeholders in the AOCs to develop delisting criteria for
the impaired BUIs. The BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored
and can be delisted. By 2009, all of the National and Binational AOCs had developed
their delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting BUIs.
Along with these targets, the respective AOCs and the States have developed a Stage 2
RAP or an equivalent document that outlines the reasonable and realistic management
actions that could be taken to delist the relevant BUIs and, hence, the AOC. After all
BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be delisted. Reasonable and
realistic management actions refer to those set of local, state and federal actions that
-------
could be taken to remove the impairment. These actions may not result in the immediate
delisting of a set of BUIs but these actions will remove the contaminant threat that will
allow environmental conditions to improve over time which will lead to eventual
delisting of the AOC.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place
(see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 5 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given
"outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see reference #2)
below. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References:
1. GLNPO maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments
in office files.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. " EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. " Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
4. Compilation of "Stage 1 and 2 Remedial Action Plans" and "Delisting Targets for
Areas of Concern" for 25 National 5 Binational AOCs. Various approval dates and
documents are located at the respective local, state and federal offices.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem
Performance Database: Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information
System (GLANSIS). GLANSIS functions as a Great Lakes specific node of the USGS
Nonidigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) national database. Information entered for
GLANSIS automatically appears in NAS. GLANSIS provides targeted access to the
information - especially collection records - for established Great Lakes nonindigenous
species in the NAS Database.
-------
Data Source: Verified observations of new species by Great Lakes surveillance and
researchers agencies and institutions, as subsequently subjected to review as described in
QA/QC procedures (below).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Great Lakes have a long history of aquatic
nonindigenous species (ANS) introductions - both intentional and unintentional. A
number of ongoing federal programs are working to reduce the rate of introductions. The
increased effort to address invasive species through GLRI funding will reduce the rate of
introductions. During the ten-year period prior to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(2000-2009), thirteen new invasive species were discovered within the Great Lakes. This
is a baseline rate of invasion of 1.3 species per year. Changes in rate will be assessed by
extending this cumulative average into the time period of the GLRI (2000-present).
This methodology assumes that the detection of invasive species in the environment
correlates with actual invasion rates. It is recognized that there can be lag time in
discovery (discussed in more detail under error estimate). This performance measure also
assumes that rate of detection is directly reflective of the GLRI effort. Because the Great
lakes ecosystem receives the input of a number of vectors that introduce invasive species
— including, live organisms in commerce, canals/waterways, ballast water, and
recreational and resource users activities - the results of the GLRI effort cannot be
measured independently from the suite of other ongoing programs at work in the Great
Lakes.
This performance measure is suitable for providing a basic pulse toward the long-term
goal of establishing a no-tolerance policy for new introductions. Invasive species
programs are in a very early stage of development and many regulatory and
programmatic gaps still exist.
QA/QC Procedures: The list of aquatic nonindigenous species found via GLANSIS is
subject to constant revision. Based on these criteria:
Geographic criterion: Only species which are established in the Great Lakes basin below
the ordinary high water mark — including connecting channels, wetlands and waters
ordinarily attached to the Lakes — are included in the GLANSIS database. Species which
have invaded inland lakes within the Great Lakes basin but not meeting the above
geographic criterion are not included in the database.
Aquatic criterion: GLANSIS includes only aquatic species. USDA wetland indicator
status (see http://plants.usda.gov/wetland.html ) is used as a guideline for determining
whether wetland plants should be included in the list - species that typically require
wetlands are included, upland species are not
Nonindigenous criterion: The species included in GLANSIS are those which are
considered nonindigenous within the Great Lakes basin according to the following
definitions and criteria (based on Ricciardi 2006): the species appeared suddenly and had
-------
not been recorded in the basin previously; it subsequently spreads within the basin; its
distribution in the basin is restricted compared with native species; its global distribution
is anomalously disjunct (i.e. contains widely scattered and isolated populations); its
global distribution is associated with human vectors of dispersal; the basin is isolated
from regions possessing the most genetically and morphologically similar species.
Cryptogenic species are those species that cannot be verified as either native or
introduced (after Carlton, 1996). Species that have been identified as cryptogenic are
generally not listed, but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or in the main
GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier.
Species which have expanded their ranges within the basin (e.g., those native to Lake
Ontario which have invaded Lake Superior) are not systematically included in the main
GLANSIS list but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or in the main
GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier. The only species presently included in
GLANSIS that violates the criterion of no previous evolutionary history in the Great
Lakes basin is the sea lamprey.
Note: Although widely used, the term 'invasive' is vague and subject to widely
inconsistent usage. Biologically it is often related to the relative ability of a species to
spread and establish in new areas, while legislatively and politically it is used to
characterize a nonindigenous species "whose introduction does or is likely to cause
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health" (Executive Order 13112,
February 1999). Thus, the term 'invasive' has multiple meanings and requires a subjective
judgment. We avoid using the term 'invasive', but may use the word 'invader', in the
context that a nonindigenous species that has successfully established a reproducing
population is an 'invader'. 'Exotic' is a commonly used synonym for 'nonindigenous'.
Established criterion: A nonindigenous species is considered established if it has a
reproducing population within the basin, as inferred from multiple discoveries of adult
and juvenile life stages over at least two consecutive years. Given that successful
establishment may require multiple introductions, species are excluded if their records of
discoveries are based on only one or a few non-reproducing individuals whose
occurrence may reflect merely transient species or unsuccessful invasions.
Data Quality Review: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: The number of Great Lakes aquatic nonindigenous species
documented in GLANSIS is to be interpreted as a minimum. Identification depends on
discovery and verification, which is, in turn, dependent on sampling effort.
Error Estimate: The GLRI effort will increase surveillance of the Great Lakes for
invasive species. Enhanced monitoring will potentially result in the discovery of
organisms that were established prior to GLRI but were not detected by lower levels of
sampling. This problem of lag time is well known in ecology, but limited studies have
-------
been performed in the Great Lakes. Recent publications (Grigorovich 2008, Trebitz
2009) have documented how increased sampling in Duluth Harbor discovered previously
undocumented species. It is unknown when they were first introduced and would not
have been discovered except for the intense sampling design. They will be reported as
"discovered" in 2006. It is expected that similar cases will occur as increase sampling is
done in other high-risk harbors in the Great Lakes. The problem of lag time will decrease
once comprehensive prevention programs are in place and operating over time. This will
reduce the uncertainty due to lag-time and make the "rate of discovery" statistic more
likely to reflect the actual rate of invasion.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References:
1. Bryan, M.B, D. Zalinski, B. Filcek, S. Libants, W. Li, and K.T. Scribner. 2005.
Patterns of invasion and colonization of the sea lamprey. Molecular Ecology
14:3757-3773
2. Carlton J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-55
3. Lawrie, A. H. 1970. The sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 99:766-775.
4. Mills EL, Leach JH, Carlton JT, Secor CL. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a
history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 1-54.
5. Ricciardi A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an "invasional
meltdown" occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513-2525.
6. Ricciardi A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to
changes in vector activity. Divers. Distrib. 12, 425-433.
7. Smith, B. R., and J. J. Tibbies. 1980. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Lakes
Huron, Michigan, and Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936-78. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(11): 1780-1801.
8. Bailey, R.M., and G.R. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the
Laurentian Great Lakes basin.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
National Research Council Canada vol:38 iss:12 pgs: 1539-1561
9. Daniels, R. A. 2001. Untested assumptions: the role of canals in the dispersal of sea
lamprey, alewife, and other fishes in the eastern United States. Env. Biol. of Fishes.
vol:60 pgs:309-329
10. Mandrak, N. E., andE. J. Grossman. 1992. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes
into Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:2247-2259.
-------
11. Smith, S. H. 1995. Early changes in the fish community of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Technical Report 60, Ann Arbor.
12. Grigorovich , LA. 2008. The Quagga Mussel Invades the Lake Superior Basin.
Journal of Great Lakes Research. 34:342-350
13. Trebitz A.S. et al (2009) Exploiting habitat and gear patterns for efficient detection of
rare and non-native benthos and fish in Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. Aquatic
Invasions, Volume 4, Issue 4: 651-667
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level.
(cumulative)
Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database.
Data Source: As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements, Federal Agencies are
required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work
performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The cumulative total number acres will be
calculated by simple summation using the GLRI Accountability System database. This
database will be developed pending approval of Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), currently in public comment phase. [EPA
ICR No. 2379.01, OMB Control No. 2005-NEW]
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place
that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in
accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed
and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to
practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions.
(cumulative)
-------
Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database.
Data Source: As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements, Federal Agencies are
required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work
performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The cumulative total number plans developed
and exercises conduced will be calculated by simple summation using the GLRI
Accountability System database. This database will be developed pending approval of
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
currently in public comment phase. [EPA ICR No. 2379.01, OMB Control No. 2005-
NEW]
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place
that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in
accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Five year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons
per year) from tributaries draining targeted watersheds
Performance Database: Loadings information will be incorporated into the standard
USGS database, NWIS.
Data Source: Various State, Federal, and local agencies collect dissolved phosphorus
data across the Great Lakes region. Water-quality data are stored in various databases:
STORET (EPA data base), NWIS (USGS data base), or those of individual State and
local agencies. Note: not all State and local agencies incorporate their data into Federal
databases. Note: not all agencies collect soluble reactive phosphorus data, some collect
dissolved phosphorus data. Agencies monitoring the rivers of interest collect their data in
accordance with approved standard procedures. Streamflow data for the rivers of interest
are collected by the USGS. All streamflow data are stored in the standard USGS
database, NWIS.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Water-quality data and streamflow data will
be collected in accordance with approved standard procedures of the USEPA and USGS.
-------
These data will then be used to compute annual loads of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus in
each river. Loads will be computed by means of one of two different approaches: a rating
curve/regression approach method such as Estimate (Cohn, et al. 1989) or Fluxmaster
(Schwarz et al. 2006); or the Beale's ratio estimator approach (Beale, 1962). Other
general assumptions include:
1. Dissolved phosphorus is similar to soluble reactive phosphorus; if soluble reactive
phosphorus is not monitored in each river.
2. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations collected represent conditions
over the entire ranges of flows experienced in each year.
3. Annual load estimation approaches, with their inherent errors, can be used to
describe small changes in 5-year average loads.
4. Loads computed for a five-year period represent the true average of hydrologic
conditions that typically have an 11 to 13 year cycle resulting from interannual
changes in hydrology.
QA/QC Procedures: Streamflow will be collected by the USGS and will follow all
standard QA/QC procedures outlined in U.S. Geological Survey by Rantz (1982) and
Mueller and Wagner (2009). Water-quality data will be collected by Federal, State, and
local agencies following their specified protocols in accordance with standard USEPA
approved protocols. Each agency will follow specified field and laboratory QA/QC
procedures consisting of blanks, replicates, and spikes. Additionally, data analyses must
be performed by laboratories that have gone through a recognized laboratory
evaluation/accreditation process including participation in ongoing blind testing programs
to provide performance data. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data-Quality Review: Annual load data will be reviewed by individual project
managers and Published in Annual Reports. Specific data-quality review procedures
depend on who is going to compute the loads and how the loads are computed.
Data Limitations: Annual loads represent an integration of current and historical land
use practices and climatic conditions during each year. Therefore, changes in the five
year average loads may not be caused by changes in practices applied in the watershed.
Error Estimate: Streamflow and water-quality data are incorporated into load
computation programs. The load computation program will be used to construct 95%
confidence limits on each annual load. It is assumed that these errors incorporate all
sampling and estimation errors.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References:
1. Beale, E.M.L. 1962. Some uses of computers in operational research. Industrielle
Organisation 31:51-52.
-------
2. Cohn, T.A., L.L DeLong, EJ. Gilroy, R.M. Hirsch, and D.E Wells. 1989. Estimating
Constituent Loads. Water Resources Research, 25(5), pp. 937-942.
3. Rantz, S.E. 1982. Measurement and computation of streamflow; Volume 1,
measurement of stage and discharge; Volume 2, computation of discharge, US
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper vol. 2175, U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C..
4. Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2009, Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler
current profilers from a moving boat: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods 3A-22, 72 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/tm3a22)
5. Schwarz, G.E., Hoos, A.B., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, R.A., 2006, SPARROW-
MOD: user documentation for the SPARROW surface water-quality model: U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, section B, Surface water,
chapter 3 (6-B3).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95% or more of beach days
Performance Database: Under the Agency's Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act Grant Program, states (territories and eligible tribes) that
receive BEACH Act grants are required to submit their beach monitoring (water quality),
notification (advisory and closing), and beach location data to EPA. Beach program
managers submit beach advisory data to EPA through CDX. Local beach program and
advisory data are stored in EPA's PRAWN (Program tracking, beach advisory water
quality standards, and nutrient) database. Beach water quality data is stored in EPA's
STORET database.
Historical beach swimming season data can be viewed in EPA's BEACON database
(Beach Advisory and Closing Online Notification system) which can be accessed at:
http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_data.about_beacon. EPA created BEACON to meet
the Agency's BEACH Act requirements. The BEACH Act (section 406(e)) requires EPA
to make a national coastal recreation water pollution occurrence database, which contains
state reported beach monitoring and notification data available to the public by electronic
means. In BEACON, each beach is geographically displayed on a map that links the
beach to data. Users select a beach and view the available data for that beach by either
first choosing a state and county or typing the beach name.
Data Source: EPA collects coastal beach monitoring and notification data from States
that receive BEACH Act grants to implement beach monitoring and notification
programs. These data are obtained directly from the Great Lakes beach managers who
submit their data to their state beach program managers throughout the beach season.
The state beach managers then send the data electronically to EPA by January 31 of each
year, as required by the BEACH Act.
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track beach advisories
and closures in the Great Lakes show the amount of water quality standards exceedances
(>235 E. coli cfu/100 ml of water) for each beach throughout the beach season (Memorial
Day through Labor Day). This format is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for
individual beaches; however, it is not useful for comparing water quality at other Great
Lakes beaches. Monitoring frequencies vary among states and local entities from
between once a week to seven days a week, so the minimally monitored beaches appear
to have better water quality.
EPA summarizes the previous swimming season's results and reports the information
each year (around Memorial Day). The report lists the number of beaches with
notification actions, duration of notification actions, and what percentage of days beaches
were under a notification action. EPA calculates the total available beach days and the
number of beach days with advisories or closures to track trends over time. To calculate
the total available beach days, EPA sums the length of each state's beach season
multiplied by the number of beaches in the state.
QA/QC Procedures: To comply with 40 CFR 31.45, which states that if a grantee's
project involves environmentally related measurements or data generation, states must
develop and implement a quality management system that is sufficient to produce data of
a quality adequate to meet the beach project objectives, states must submit a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) or equivalent documentation. Each BEACH Act grantee
has an approved beach monitoring QAPP in place that is update annually.
Data Quality Review: EPA conducts a quality check of the beach data submitted. EPA
has designed quality assurance checks into the information transfer software to ensure the
information is secure and that only the appropriate people in state and territorial
governments can send the information. EPA then reviews the incoming data to flag
potential data errors and works with the state governments to correct any errors.
Data Limitations: As indicated above, tracking beach advisory and closure information
is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for individual beaches; however, it is not useful
for comparing beach water quality with other Great Lakes beaches. Monitoring
frequencies vary among states and local entities from between once a week to seven days
a week, so the minimally monitored beaches appear to have better water quality. In
addition, the measure does not indicate whether a program is effective. Beach water
quality exceedances are due to many factors, most of which beach managers do not have
any control over (e.g., rainfall amount, duration and intensity, wave action, current).
Error Estimate: Not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing beach data tracking systems are anticipated
to remain in place.
References:
-------
1. U.S. EPA's Beach Monitoring & Notification Data User Corner available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/datausers/index.htm
2. U.S. EPA, EPA 's BEACH Report: 2008 Swimming Season, May 2009 (EPA 823-F-
09-005).
3. U.S. EPA, National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants,
June 2002 (EPA-823-B-02-004).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices implemented
to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide loading
Performance Database: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's National
Conservation Planning Database and Performance Results System.
Data Source: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides financial
and technical assistance to private landowners and producers throughout the United
States through one-on-one assistance at the farm level. The results of that assistance are
documented at the field office level using the NRCS National Conservation Planning
Database (NCP). The Performance Results System (PRS) reports performance in various
ways based on established performance measure business definitions.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Natural Resources Conservation Service staff
and conservation partners enter geo-located conservation planning and application
information into the NCP daily. This data is the result of landowner/producer planning
decisions and in-field certification of applied conservation practices. Certification occurs
only after an applied practice meets NRCS standards and specifications. Conservation
planning is the process through which decision-makers, land owners or producers,
voluntarily agree to a recommended series of conservation practices or systems designed
to address the natural resource concern, such as sheet and rill or gully erosion, surface or
subsurface nutrient loading or animal agriculture. Other concerns, such as wildlife
habitat and sustainable agriculture, may also be addressed. Conservation planning and
application documentation warehoused in the NCP are date-stamped, geo-referenced and
linked to an employee ID, enabling detailed quality-assurance reviews. Periodic in field
reviews (spot checkes) are conducted to assess the accuracy of reported field data.
QA/QC Procedures: Conservation planning and application is reported through the
Performance Results System (PRS) using data stored in the NCP. Numerous data quality
mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of each performance record entry.
Each performance record must adhere to a set of quality assurance requirements during
the upload process to be credited towards Agency performance. Conservation planning
and application documentation is entered into the NCP by field office personnel. Field
staffs are trained and skilled in conservation planning and application suited to the local
resource conditions. The information used to develop conservation plans is obtained
-------
from on-site resource evaluation, observation, and measurement. Practices applied
according to the conservation plan are certified as meeting NRCS standards and
specifications. These standards are specific to the practice and ensure the application will
address the identified resource concern. Quality Assurance processes are in place at the
field, area, state and national level to ensure data entry into the NCP is accurate. Detailed
QA/QC is performed on all data entries quarterly.
Data Quality Review: Beginning FY 2009 quarterly detailed QA/QC based field level
queries were performed on all entered data. As a result, confidence in entered data is
good. Data entry error checking and automated (real time) QA/QC is in development to
improve the QA/QC process, capture potential errors at the point of data entry, and
increase staff field time. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: Conservation planning and application performance is year and
program specific. A series of integrated conservation practices may be applied to the
same land unit using one or more available programs over a series of years. In addition, a
land unit or farm operation may be replanned due to a significant change in the operation
or change in owner/operator. For these reasons the cumulative acreage planned or
applied over multiple years may not reflect unique acres.
Error Estimate: Initial QA/QC data queries at the national level have shown less than a
five percent error rate. A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data entry error checking and automated (real time)
QA/QC is in development to improve the QA/QC process, capture potential errors at the
point of data entry, and increase staff field time.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• % of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered species self-
sustaining in the wild, (cumulative)
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Fisheries
Information System (FIS), a component of the Environmental Conservation Online
System (ECOS) (see reference below). Data on aquatic taxa are compiled annually to
meet performance reporting and budgetary requirements to the Department of the
Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.
Data Source: The Service's Fisheries Program is the principal source of data for the
FIS. Cooperating organizations include other federal agencies, states, Tribes, and non-
governmental partners that assist with population assessment and monitoring.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The FIS Populations Module provides
information on what is known about populations of aquatic species (i.e., status, trend,
geographic location, management plans, etc.) and has broad scientific utility. Population
-------
data are updated annually in FIS to reflect most recent population and habitat assessment
information, and are reported on an annual basis (September of the fiscal year) to the
Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress in the
Service's Operational Plan.
QA/QC Procedures: Population data are collected by sources identified above and
entered into the web-based FIS program by Service field office staff. Regional data are
compiled and submitted to headquarters program staff for review and approval.
Data Quality Review: The Service has approved data quality management practices in
place. Data in FIS are open for examination by internal and external audit. The Fisheries
Program received an "Effective" assessment rating as a result of the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) in 2006. The Fisheries Program continues to implement
recommendations as identified in the PART Improvement Plan and complies with agency
quality standards. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and
approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: Outcome-level performance measures as documented through the
FIS Populations Module are critical connections between field-based conservation action
and regional and national-level funding and accountability. Completeness and accuracy
of information in the module is dependent on Service biologists entering the data.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: The FIS modules are continually being reviewed and
updated to reflect new scientific information and changing reporting needs. The online
sytem will eventually provide public access to the population information.
References:
Environmental Conservation Online System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do, http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do
1. Fisheries Information System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries
and Habitat Conservation, Arlington, VA. 2006
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/pdfs/factsheets/FIS.pdf
2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Assessment Rating Tool Results, Fisheries
Program 2006. http://www.fws.gov/Planning/Documents/PART/Fisheries.pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored
and enhanced, (cumulative)
-------
Performance Database: EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
track the cumulative total of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected,
restored and enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NFS), U.S.
Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest
Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Each agency mentioned above will provide
information about cumulative wetlands and wetland-associated upland acres protected,
restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and contractors. Information will be
input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Accountability Database. GLNPO
will compile and distill information into a yearly GLRI report.
QA/QC Procedures
GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the
USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review
Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through
GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agency's staff, grant and contract
reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by
project managers.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability
System
References
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total
of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and
enhanced, (cumulative)
-------
Performance Database: EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and
enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NFS), U.S.
Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest
Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability
Each agency mentioned above will provide information about cumulative coastal, upland,
and island habitats acres protected, restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and
contractors. Information will be input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
Accountability Database. GLNPO will compile and distill information into a yearly GLRI
report.
The definition of coastal is sand beaches and dunes, forests, alvars and other non-wetland
habitats.
QA/QC Procedures
GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place that conforms to the
USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review
Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through
GLNPO's Quality Program.
Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agency's staff, grant and contract
reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by
project managers.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability
System
References
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total
of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced.
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
• Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water
pollution and protecting aquatic systems
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
collect and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance
results as part of annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and as online reporting of GLNPO's monitoring program,
. Extensive databases for the indicator
components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus concentrations, contaminated
sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational agreement with
Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who provide data to
the USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of scientists and
natural resource managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program to
determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands.
Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and generally
reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The
document, "State of the Great Lakes 2009 - A Technical Report" presents detailed
indicator reports prepared by primary authors, including listings of data sources.
Depending on the indicators, data sources may include U.S. and Canadian federal
agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research reports and published
scientific literature. Information from the following indicators is used to evaluate the
Index components:
Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Coastal Wetland Bird Community Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Effects of Water Levels Fluctuations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in
SOLEC. Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation
is collected by USEPA-GLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the
contaminated sediment index component of this Index.)
Benthic Health group of indicators:
Hexagenia
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Drinking Water Quality
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where
the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal
wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach
-------
closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of
Concern (AOC) sediment contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to
5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Authors use best professional judgment
to assess the overall status of the ecosystem component in relation to established
endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when available. The SOLEC indicators are also
evaluated for Status (good, fair, poor, mixed) and Trend (improving, unchanging,
deteriorating, undetermined). To calculate the Index, the data for each indicator are
compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric, 1 to 5, rating system. Each of the
index components, other than the AOC sediment contamination component, is included
in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was developed through an extensive
multi-agency process to satisfy the overall criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible.
Information on the selection process is in the document, "Selection of Indicators for
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in
place^see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order
and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators
are collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than USEPA.
Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to assure
high quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to document
procedures for data assessment and review for the indicators reports prepared for the
State of the Great Lakes 2005 report. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
2004 QAPP." Contaminated sediment remediation information is collected in
conformance with GLNPO's Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary
Support QAPP2 (see reference #2 below).
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given
"outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews (see reference #2
below). GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by an
international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national indicator and
reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several recommendations
were made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports. Many of the
recommendations have been implemented, and others are being considered for feasibility.
The final report by the review panel is available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Peer Review Report" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes
stakeholders in 2004. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others were
added. The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the
-------
indicators relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues. The
final report from the review is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html.
See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder
Review of the Great Lakes Indicators" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index.
The data are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination,
benthic health, and air toxics deposition. The data associated with other components of
the index (coastal wetlands, AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking
water quality) are more qualitative. Some data are distributed among several sources,
and without an extensive trend line. Limitations for each of the index components are
included in the formal indicator descriptions in the document, "The Great Lakes Indicator
Suite: Changes and Progress 2004." The data provided in the sediment tracking database
should be used as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great
Lakes. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project
managers. For specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to
provide additional information.
Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified.
Each unit of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the
assessment of one of the component indicators would result in a change of the index of
that magnitude. The degree of environmental change required to affect an indicator
assessment, however, may be significantly large.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data continue to be collected by various agencies,
including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes
monitoring programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data
collection and reporting. Documentation regarding SOLEC is available on the Internet
and from GLNPO4 (see reference # 4 below).
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/
2. Quality Assurance Project Plan for "Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project
Summary Support." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files, June
2008.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
4. a. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared
as part of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
b. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-
34798-6, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-ll/35-2003E, and
-------
U.S.
c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available
on CD and online at .
d. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical
Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario,
Cat. No. Enl64-l/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago. Available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html
e. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment
Canada, Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. Enl61-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available
online at
f. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and
U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000. Available online at .
g. Forst, Christina, Paul Bertram and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2004. The Great Lakes
Indicator Suite: Changes and Progress at SOLEC 2004. Available online at
http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC%202004/Tagged%20PDFs/Changes_and_
Progress_Paper_(FULL). pdf
h. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights,"
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario (Cat. No. Enl61-3/2007E) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-07-002) 2007. Available
online at http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf.
i. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2009," Environment
Canada, Burlington, Ontario (Cat. No. Enl61-3/l-2009E-PDF) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA-905-R-09-031) 2009. Available
online at http://binational.net/solec/sogl2009_e.html.
All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development
processes, conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html . The documents are sorted by SOLEC year
and include the State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following
calendar year.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen reduction practices to
reduce nitrogen 162.5 million Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 175 million
-------
Ib/yr cap load, based on long-term average hydrology simulations (program
assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
• Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus reduction practices to
reduce phosphorus 14.36 million Ibs from 1985 levels to achieve a 12.8
million Ib/yr cap load, based on long-term average hydrology simulations
(program assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
• Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment reduction practices to
reduce sediment 1.69 million tons from 1985 levels to achieve a 4.15 million
ton/yr cap load, based on long-term average hydrology simulations
(program assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
implement agricultural BMPs (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Sediment.) Implementation of point & nonpoint source nitrogen and
phosphorus reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as % of
reduction goal achieved. The nitrogen goal is a 162.5 million pound reduction from FY
1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175 million Ibs (based on long-term average
hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a 14.36 million pound reduction from
FY1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million Ibs (based on long-term
average hydrology simulations). Achieving the cap loads is expected to result in
achievement of the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and
dissolved oxygen. Point source loads are monitored or estimated based on expert
evaluation of treatment processes. Nonpoint source loads are simulated based on
reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to
measure the effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs,
with various pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the
watershed - to a common currency of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction.
Implementation of sediment reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed
as % of land-based sediment reduction goal achieved. The sediment reduction goal is a
1.69 million ton reduction from FY 1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4.15
million tons (based on average hydrology simulations). Achieving this cap load is
expected to result in achievement of the long-term restoration goals for submerged
aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen. Loads are simulated based upon reported
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce sediment pollution.
The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the
effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with various
pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.
Agricultural BMP costs include all capital and O&M costs assumed by both landowners
and government agencies. This measure focuses on agricultural BMPs because they are
the most cost effective way to reduce nutrient loading in the watershed.
-------
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/reducingpollution2008.xls. Data have
been reported for calendar years 1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008 and are expected on an annual basis after 2008. Data are from Chesapeake Bay
watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC.
The FY 2011 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results
of the 2010 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2010 in
March 2011.
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/reducingpollution2008.doc.
Data Source: Annual jurisdictional submissions of both monitored and estimated point
source effluent concentrations and flows approved by each jurisdiction as well as
nonpoint source practice data tracked by jurisdictions and reported to the Chesapeake
Bay Program office. For point source data, refer to
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data_pointsource.aspx. Summary nonpoint source
practice implementation data with comparisons to Tributary Strategy levels can be found
at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/tributarystrategy_tools.aspx. Summary loads and
landuse acreage with comparisons to Tributary Strategy goals and cap load allocations
can be found at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/tributarystrategy_tools.aspx. For detailed
historic and current scenario loads as well as jurisdictional Tributary Strategies, refer to
http ://www. chesapeakeb ay. net/data_modeling. aspx.
Custodians of Source Data:
• Wastewater: Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
• Nonpoint Source practices and Watershed Model information: Jeff Sweeney,
Nonpoint Source Data Manager, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office
Agricultural practice costs used in the program assessment efficiency measure are in the
guidance document "Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability" (Technical Support Document) under "Part I:
Documentation of Estimated Costs of the Tier Scenarios". Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on page 36 and a summary table of unit BMP costs is on
page 70 of hard copy document.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3
Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated point source discharge loads
(generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to nutrient loads delivered to
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters, which the indicator is based on.
-------
The Phase 4.3 Watershed Model is also employed to integrate the nonpoint source
practice implementation data - submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and
programs - to changes in delivered nutrient and sediment loads as well as to assimilate
the impacts of both point and nonpoint source controls and practices for the Reducing
Pollution Summary.
A wealth of both general and technical documents about the Chesapeake Bay Program
Watershed Model can be found on the Bay Program's web site. These documents can
accessed through the Modeling Subcommittee's site
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_msc_info.aspx under the links "Current
Projects" and "Publications".
The Phase 4.3 Watershed Model is calibrated to long-term monitoring data at 26
calibration sites throughout the basin with edge-of-stream land use calibrations for 9 land
categories. For direct comparisons of monitoring and modeled data for the 1985-1994
simulation period, see "CBP Watershed Model - Phase 4.3 Calibration" at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/temporary/mdsc/index.htm
Of particular significance are the in-stream calibration plots for flows and total nitrogen
and total phosphorus loads at the Susquehanna and Potomac fall-lines because of the
basins' considerable impact on dissolved oxygen in the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay.
For an understanding of the Phase 4.3 Watershed Model calibration rules, see
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/temporary/mdsc/calibration_0700.pdf
The Watershed Model allows scientists to simulate changes in physical, chemical, and
biological processes in a large and complex ecosystem due to changes in human and
animal populations, land uses, or pollution management, so that technically sound
environmental decisions can be made. Monitoring data provides observations in the past
or the present, at discrete times, and at isolated locations while modeling scenarios can be
used to represent the environment under different management regimes in different
temporal and spatial scales.
The Tributary Strategy goals for the Reducing Pollution indicators represent this "what-
if' management regime, providing comparisons among historic and current watershed
conditions and a future condition that would restore water quality and living resources in
the Chesapeake Bay. So that the comparisons are relevant, reported nonpoint source
loads from the Watershed Model are estimates of what would occur in an average
hydrology year with a single year's watershed conditions (i.e., land uses, animal manure
and chemical fertilizer inputs, human population, BMPs, septic, and atmospheric
deposition). Point source loads reflect measured discharges from tracked waste treatment
and industrial facilities, using the model to account for changes in nutrients as the
pollutants move downstream.
For procedures of calculating point source discharges from data received from
jurisdictions, refer to the following:
-------
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient &
Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Point Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for
Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA
grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
For data acquisition and management of nonpoint source data received from jurisdictions,
refer to:
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for
Managing Nonpoint Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA
grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
In developing the Reducing Pollution indicators, comparisons are made within relevant
source sectors and among relevant years and goals for nutrient and sediment loads
delivered to tidal waters - as estimated by the Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3
Watershed Model. The Watershed Model is employed to integrate the nonpoint source
practice implementation data - submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and
programs -with changes in delivered nutrient and sediment loads. The model also
assimilates the impacts of both point and nonpoint source controls and practices for the
Reducing Pollution Summary.
The current status of a source indicator (e.g. WWTPs) is a comparison between the total
load reductions from that source made between!985 and 2008 and the load reductions
that need to be made, starting in 1985, to meet the state tributary strategies. For the
summary Reducing Pollution indicator, the current status is a comparison of total load
reductions made from all sources combined between 1985 and 2008 and the load
reductions that need to be made starting in 1985 to meet the Bay Program's cap load
allocations.
1985 is often used as the baseline and 2008 is the most recent annual model assessment
of loads to the Bay. Tributary Strategy loads are the model's assimilation of
jurisdictional clean-up plans submitted to the Bay Program office as of 6/22/07, the last
date a jurisdictional revision was made. The Tributary Strategies are detailed plans of
point and nonpoint source programs, practices and control technologies that, when
combined, would meet the cap loads for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment - as assessed
by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Phase 4.3 Watershed Model. The cap load allocations
were developed earlier and assigned to each jurisdictions' portion of the major tributaries
of the Chesapeake Bay following a process documented in "Setting and Allocating the
Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment Loads: The Collaborative Process,
Technical Tools and Innovative Approaches" at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_19713.pdf There are no caps
assigned to sources in the cap load allocations as there is source specificity in the
jurisdictional Tributary Strategies.
-------
It is important to note that nonpoint source load estimates depicted by the Watershed
Model are based on an average-hydrology year and would not track monitored loads for
that particular year. Point source loads reflect measured discharges for each particular
year, or the best estimates where data is lacking.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures for compiling and managing point source discharge
data at the Chesapeake Bay Program office are documented in the following EPA-
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan:
• "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake
Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator,
Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Procedures for acquiring and managing nonpoint source data at the Chesapeake Bay
Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance
Project PI an:
"Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Nonpoint Source Data - Chesapeake Bay
Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen
Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Quality Reviews: The Reducing Pollution indicators have undergone technical and
peer review by federal, state and local government and nongovernmental organization
partner members of the Bay Program network. Data selection and interpretation and the
presentation of the indicator (along with all supporting information and conclusions) are
arrived at via consensus of scientists and resource managers of the Bay Program
Tributary Strategy Workgroup, Wastewater Treatment Workgroup, and Urban
Stormwater Workgroup. Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC is conducted by the
custodians of the source data.
Jurisdictions providing point source effluent data and nonpoint source BMP data to the
Bay Program office have supplied documentation of their quality assurance and quality
control policies, procedures, and specifications in the form of Quality Assurance
Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. Jurisdictional documentation
can be obtained by contacting the Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data and methods used in the Watershed Model as well as the simulation itself and
loading outputs are continually under external and internal review. Internal review
mostly involves Bay Program subcommittees and their workgroups such as the Nutrient
Subcommittee (Tributary Strategy Workgroup, Wastewater Treatment Workgroup,
Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup, Urban Stormwater
Workgroup, Forestry Workgroup, and Sediment Workgroup); the Modeling
Subcommittee; and special task groups established particularly for peer review. Scopes
and purposes of these groups and their extensive considerations of the Watershed Model
as a planning tool can be found at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/nsc.htm (Nutrient
-------
Subcommittee and workgroups) and at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/modsc.htm
(Modeling Subcommittee).
The most recent review of the Bay Program's watershed modeling effort by an
independent panel of experts was completed February, 2008. An external panel
assembled by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model assessing (1) work to date, (2) the model's suitability for making
management decisions at the Bay Watershed and local scales, and (3) potential
enhancements to improve the predictive ability of the next generation of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Models. A report of the review, with specific recommendations, can be
found at the STAC site http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacpubs.html
Another review of Bay Program modeling efforts "Modeling in the Chesapeake Bay
Program: 2010 and Beyond" completed January, 2006 is published by STAC at
http ://www. Chesapeake. org/stac/Pubs/ModBay201 OReport.pdf
In June, 2005, another review of the Watershed Model addressed the following broad
questions: 1) Does the current phase of the model use the most appropriate protocols for
simulation of watershed processes and management impacts, based on the current state of
the art in the HSPF model development?, and 2) Looking forward to the future
refinement of the model, where should the Bay Program look to increase the utility of the
watershed model? Details of this review and responses can be found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/Watershed_Model_Peer_Revie
w.pdf
Data Limitations: Nonpoint source BMP implementation data were not reported
consistently and for all watershed jurisdictions for the period 1986-1999. Therefore, the
1986-1999 nonpoint source levels are a linear progression between the 1985 baseline and
the year 2000.
Error Estimate: There may be errors in classification, georeferencing, and
documentation, mistakes in the processing of data or data omissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently
under development and will be used for development of the Bay TMDL. The new
version (phase 5) has increased spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of
management practices. The phase 5 watershed model is a joint project with cooperating
state and Federal agencies. Contact Gary Shenk at gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the
web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm
References:
• See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, refer to CBP Watershed
Model Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3. Contact Jeff Sweeney
i sweeney@chesapeakebay.net
-------
• Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment)
indicators are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_reducingpollution.aspx
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds
achieved (program assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
• Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16 million pounds
achieved (program assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
Performance Database: Point source nitrogen and phosphorus reductions are reported
as % of goal achieved and pounds. The goal for point source nitrogen reductions is 49.9
million pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. The goal for point source phosphorus
reductions is 6.16 million pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. Point source nitrogen
and phosphorus data is reported based upon monitored results from the previous calendar
year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/wastewater2008.xls. Data have been
collected 1985-2008 and are expected on an annual basis after 2008.
The FY 2011 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results
of the 2010 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2010 in
March 2011.
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/wastewater2008.doc.
Data Source: Annual jurisdictional submissions of both monitored and estimated point
source effluent concentrations and flows approved by each jurisdiction as well as
nonpoint source practice data tracked by jurisdictions and reported to the Chesapeake
Bay Program office. For point source data, refer to
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data_pointsource.aspx.
Custodian of Source Data: Wastewater: Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For procedures of calculating point source
discharges from data received from jurisdictions, refer to the following:
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient &
Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Point Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for
Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA
-------
grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Monitored discharge data were generated from the EPA-approved standard sampling and
analysis methods and documented in the Data Monthly Reports from facilities to
jurisdictions.
Discharge data back to the earlier years of the record are inadequate for many regions in
the Bay watershed; however, the 1985 baseline is consistent throughout the indicator
record.
Facilities have been added to the point source database over the years, not necessarily
because they physically went on line, but because they were previously untracked. In
addition, facilities have been turned inactive in the point source database over time
because they went offline or combined with other facilities as new plants.
Protocols of calculating discharges from measured or estimated flows and effluent
concentrations have been adjusted throughout the data record to better reflect actual end-
of-pipe loads.
Jurisdictional Tributary Strategies may not be final so the goals could be adjusted in the
future as jurisdictions update implementation plans that better reflect projected point
source discharges.
Point source data sets from seven jurisdictions are merged at the Chesapeake Bay
Program office. Continual peer-review of the thoroughness of discharge data and
methods of managing the information by the Wastewater Treatment Workgroup promotes
consistency and completeness of calculated end-of-pipe loads among the jurisdictions.
Point source indicator goals are rooted in projected discharge flows for the year 2010 or
facility capacity flows as established by individual jurisdictions or under forecasting
protocols of the Bay Program Wastewater Treatment Workgroup.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures for compiling and managing point source discharge
data at the Chesapeake Bay Program office are documented in the following EPA-
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan:
• "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake
Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Coordinator,
Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Quality Reviews: The indicators have undergone technical and peer review by
federal, state and local government and nongovernmental organization partner members
of the Bay Program network. Data selection and interpretation and the presentation of
the indicator (along with all supporting information and conclusions) are arrived at via
consensus of scientists and resource managers of the Bay Program Wastewater Treatment
-------
Workgroup. Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the custodians
of the source data.
Jurisdictions providing point source effluent data and nonpoint source BMP data to the
Bay Program office have supplied documentation of their quality assurance and quality
control policies, procedures, and specifications in the form of Quality Assurance
Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. Jurisdictional documentation
can be obtained by contacting the Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Limitations: Peer-reviewed methods are employed to estimate point source
discharges where all needed measured data is not available. Refer to:
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient &
Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Point Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing
Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact:
Quality Assurance Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Error Estimate: The CBP tries to trace significant variability in the data and limit its
impact.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
The Wastewater Pollution Controls indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wastewater.aspx?menuitem=19692
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved (program
assessment measure-Chesapeake Bay Program)
Performance Database: Forest buffer planting is reported as % of goal achieved. The
long term goal is to plant 10,000 miles of forest buffers. The information is based on
cumulative acres planted since FY 1997 provided by the states for the previous calendar
year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/forestbuffers2008.xls. Data have been
collected 1996-2008 and are expected on an annual basis after 2008.
The FY 2011 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results
of the 2010 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2010 in
March 2011.
-------
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/forestbuffers2008.doc.
Data Source: Sampling design is formulated by the USDA for tracking projects and
funds. Data and metadata are sent to the Forestry Work Group (state-level Departments
of Forestry) by participating state coordinators and field personnel. Geographic
Information System maps are produced by the UMD Center for Environmental Science.
Contacts: Judy Okay,jokay@chesapeakebay.net
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data collected for tracking linear ft, miles, and
acres of forest buffers are measured directly. State data are merged to get cumulative
miles. Submission criteria have been set and agreed to by State agencies. The data are
summarized in a spreadsheet by geographic location with related extent of project sites. A
Geographic Information System (GIS) is used to help generate the indicator data.
Data Quality Reviews: The data are collected by state field personnel and submitted to
the state-level Departments of Forestry for QA/QC checks.
Data Limitations: The data are only as good as the data originally submitted by the
states. This information passes through many hands before being merged into the annual
cumulative miles. Human error enters into this type of record. The data are compiled
and released with utmost attention to accuracy and validation of locations and extents of
riparian forest buffers.
Error Estimate: none calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
The Riparian Forest Buffers Planted indicator is published at
http ://www. chesapeakeb ay. net/status_forestbuffers. aspx?menuitem= 19723
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/forestbuffers2008.doc.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres achieved,
based on annual monitoring from prior year.
Performance Database: Acres of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay is
reported as % of goal achieved. The long term goal is 185,000 acres, which represents
-------
approximate historic abundance from the 1930s to present. The data are based on acreage
measured in photographs during the annual aerial surveys (after photo-interpretation).
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/baygrasses2008.xls. Data have been
collected 1984-2009, excluding 1988 when no surveys were conducted, and are expected
on an annual basis.
The FY 2011 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results
of the 2010 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2010 in
March 2011.
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/baygrasses2008.doc.
Data Source: Virginia Institute of Marine Science via EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office grant.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Please refer to
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav02/report/reportindex_page.html.
The SAV survey is a general monitoring program, conducted to optimize precision and
accuracy in characterizing annually the status and trends of SAV in tidal portions of the
Chesapeake Bay. The general plan is to follow fixed flight routes over shallow water
areas of the Bay to comprehensively survey all tidal shallow water areas of the Bay and
its tidal tributaries. Non-tidal areas are omitted from the survey. SAV beds less than 1
square meter are not included due to the limits of the photography and interpretation.
Annual monitoring began in 1984 and is ongoing. See Chesapeake Bay SAV special
reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and bibliography at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html.
Methods developed for this survey are described in "2002 Distribution of submerged
aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. R. J. Orth, D. J. Wilcox, L. S.
Nagey, A. L. Owens, J. R. Whiting, and A. Serio. VIMS Special Scientific Report
Number 139. Final report to U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. Grant
No.CB983649-01-0, 2003." available at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav02/.
Methods are also described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file for the
EPA grant (contact: EPA grant project officer, Mike Fritz (fritz.mike@epa.gov) and at
the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/). See Chesapeake Bay SAV special
reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and bibliography at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. Metadata are included with the data set
posted at the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences describes data collection, analysis, and management
methods. This is on file at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (contact: EPA grant project officer, Mike Fritz (fritz.mike@epa.gov).
The VIMS web site at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well.
Metadata are included with the data set posted at the VIMS web site
(http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive technical and peer
review by state, Federal and non-government organization partner members of the SAV
workgroup and the Living Resources subcommittee. Data collection, data analysis and
QA/QC are conducted by the principal investigators/scientists. The data are peer
reviewed by scientists on the workgroup. Data selection and interpretation, the
presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting information and conclusions, are
arrived at via consensus by the scientists in collaboration with the resource manager
members of the workgroup. The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee
where extensive peer review by Bay Program managers occurs. See Chesapeake Bay
SAV special reports at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and bibliography at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. The SAV distribution data files are
located at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html. The SAV indicator is published at
www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrasses.aspx.
Data Limitations: Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in 1988. Spatial
gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurricane disturbance and subsequent inability to reliably
photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to post-nine-eleven flight restrictions
near Washington D.C. Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred due to adverse weather in the spring
and summer and Hurricane Isabel in the fall. Estimates of acreage in the non-surveyed
areas, based on prior year surveys, were developed for those years (1999, 2001, 2003).
Error Estimate: Values used in the analysis are aggregated data, aggregated by
Chesapeake Bay segment. Please refer to
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav03/report/calculation_sav_area_page.html and
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav03/report/mapping_process_page.html for methods and
tools.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photo-
interpretation tools) were made over the 16 years of the annual SAV survey in
Chesapeake Bay. Surveyors and analysts have carefully evaluated the effect of
methodological changes along the way and made corrections to adjust for any known
effects.
References:
• The indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrasses.aspx.
-------
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and bibliography at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards attainment achieved,
based on annual monitoring from the previous calendar year and the
preceding 2 years.
Performance Database: Dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standards attainment is
reported as % of goal achieved. The long term goal is standards attainment in all tidal
segments of the Chesapeake Bay.
State water quality standards have been adopted to reflect the dissolved oxygen needs of
the Bay's aquatic life. The standards vary with water depth, season and duration of
exposure. To meet state regulations, all data gathered within each tidal river and
mainstem Bay segment must meet required dissolved oxygen concentrations, based on a
combination of interpolation and cumulative frequency distribution (CFD) analyses.
These analyses allow for some temporal and spatial exceedences of dissolved oxygen
criteria. But if the segment has concentrations that exceed the permitted spatial and
temporal allowances, the entire volume of water for that segment is considered out of
attainment.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/dissolvedoxygen2008.xls. Data have
been collected 1985-2009 and are expected on an annual basis.
The FY 2011 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the
assessment of the 2008-2010 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary
results for the 2008-2010 assessment period in March 2011.
The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data are available at
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/status/status08/dissolvedoxygen2008.doc.
Data Source: DO is measured by the MD Department of Natural Resources (MD
mainstem and tributary data), the VA Department of Environmental Quality (VA
tributary data and benthic monitoring data), Old Dominion University (VA mainstem
data), Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VA data), and Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay (volunteer monitoring program in VA).
Data included in standard monitoring programs are located on the CEVIS data hub. These
data can be downloaded from the Chesapeake Bay Program website
-------
(http://www.chesapeakebay.net/wquality.htm) by selecting the "data" tab and
subsequently the "CBP Water Quality Database (1984-present)" for dissolved oxygen
data. Additional data submitted by the states from non-standard monitoring programs
can be obtained by contacting Jeni Keisman (UMCES/CBPO) at
JKeisman@chesapeakebay.net.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Standards attainment assessment is based on
DO concentrations measured in-situ at surface and depth profiles at fixed stations in the
entire Bay. Raw data are processed by the Bay Program's interpolator program and,
subsequently, interpolations are analyzed by a fortran program on a linux platform to
determine the volumetric extent of compliance. Methods are described in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file for the EPA grant. Documentation is available at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/qatidal.htm.
QA/QC Procedures: The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is on file for the EPA
grant. Documentation is available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/qatidal.htm.
Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone technical and peer review by state,
Federal and non-government organization partner members of the Tidal Monitoring and
Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) and the Monitoring and Assessment Subcommittee
(MASC). Data collection, data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by the principal
investigators/scientists. The data are peer reviewed by scientists in the workgroup. Data
selection and interpretation, the presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting
information and conclusions, are arrived at via consensus by the scientists in
collaboration with the resource manager members of the workgroup. The workgroup
presents the indicator to the subcommittee where extensive peer review by Bay Program
managers occurs. The dissolved oxygen indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_dissolvedoxygen.aspx.
Data Limitations: Since 2003, we have included monitoring data provided by the states
that were gathered by additional programs beyond the long-term fixed station monitoring
program in place since 1985. Similar data did not exist prior to 2003, so it is not included
for analyses going back to 1985. Therefore, caution should be exercised when attempting
to extrapolate trends from the 1985-2007 results as the sampling regime is not consistent
for the entire time period. Specifically, additional data is included in analyses from 2003
to present.
Error Estimate: DO data are aggregated to 78 tidal water segments for the Chesapeake
Bay (2003 revised Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) segmentation and zonation scheme)
and then aggregated to the baywide scale. Dissolved oxygen is variable both spatially
and temporally. The interpolation program used to determine the spatial variability has
inherent errors that add to the uncertainty of estimating DO concentrations in large areas
of the Bay. Moreover, the interpolations have inherent errors in that they are a composite
of monthly data and the sampling of different parts of the Bay occurs over different times
of the month. Therefore, there are limitations to how the data can be applied and
-------
interpreted both spatially and temporally. Documentation is available at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/qatidal.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are DO criteria and standards attainment
assessment methods for the Chesapeake Bay that have been developed and published for
this indicator (refer to references, below). They are under constant review and have been
revised and updated on an ongoing basis.
References:
The indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_dissolvedoxygen.aspx.
Chesapeake Bay Specific Water Quality Criteria documentation
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay
and Its Tidal Tributaries. EPA 903-R-03-002. Region III Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publicati on.aspx?publicationid= 13142
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
far Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay
and Its Tidal Tributaries-2004 Addendum. EPA 903-R-04-005. Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13268.pdf
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
far Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay
and Its Tidal Tributaries-2007 Addendum. EPA 903-R-07-003. CBP/TRS 285-
07. Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publicati ons/cbp_27849.pdf
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
far Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay
and Its Tidal Tributaries-2007 Chlorophyll a Criteria Addendum. EPA 903-R-
07-005. CBP/TRS 288-07. Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publicati ons/cbp_2013 8.pdf
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
far Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay
and Its Tidal Tributaries-2008 Technical Support far Criteria Assessment
Protocols Addendum. EPA 903-R-08-001. CBP/TRS 290-08. Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological Evaluation for the
Issuance of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity
-------
and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. Region III
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_28935.pdf
• National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion—Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll afar the Chesapeake Bay and
Its Tidal Tributaries-2007 Chlorophyll a Criteria Addendum.
F/NER/2003/00961. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region,
Gloucester, Massachusetts.
• Olson, M. 2009. Relative Status Indicators: Development and Evolution of a
Relative Measure of Condition for Assessing the Status of Water Quality and
Biological Parameters Tracked in the US/EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Long
Term Monitoring Programs—Final Report. The Interstate Commission for the
Potomac River Basin, Rockville, Maryland.
http://www.potomacriver.org/cms/publicationspdf/ICPRB09-4.pdf
Chesapeake Bay Tidal Water Designated Uses/Use Attainability Analyses
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Technical Support Document for
Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability. EPA 903-R-
03-004. Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publication.aspx?publicationid=13218
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Technical Support Document for
Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability-2004
Addendum. EPA 903-R-04-006. Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publicati ons/cbp_l 3270.pdf
• Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical
Segmentation Schemes: Revision, decisions and rationales, 1983-2003. EPA 903-
R-04-008. CBP/TRS 268/04. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
Maryland, http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publication.aspx?publicationid=l3272
• Chesapeake Bay Program. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical
Segmentation Schemes: Revision, decisions and rationales, 1983-2003—2005
Addendum. EPA 903-R-05-004. CBP/TRS 278/06. Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13378.pdf
• Moore, K.A., RJ. Orth and DJ. Wilcox. (2009). Assessment of the Abundance of
Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Communities in the Chesapeake Bay and
Its Use in SAV Management. In: Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies
for Coastal Ecosystems Assessment and Management, Lecture Notes in
Geoinformation and Cartography, (Xiaojun Yang, ed). Springer-Verlag Berlin
-------
Heidelberg, pp. 233-357.
http://www.springer.com/geographv/gis+cartography/book/978-3-540-88182-7
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in impaired
segments in 13 priority areas (cumulative starting in FY 07)
Performance Database: EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert
Query Tool
Data Source: Data regarding impaired segments are from EPA's "Surf Your
Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert Query Tool updated every two years when
states submit their 303(d) reports on the status of impaired water segments as required in
the Clean Water Act (CWA) 305(b) report. Another source of data is the EPA-approved
Decision Documents, the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for state 303(d) data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To begin, the Decision Documents for each
Gulf State are acquired. The water bodies listed as impaired for Florida, Alabama, and
Mississippi are compared to "Surf Your Watershed" and then to the WATERS Expert
Query Tool. Louisiana and Texas have a different form for their Decision Documents,
which include only delisted water bodies. For these two states only "Surf Your
Watershed" and WATERS Expert Query Tool are used. All the data are cross referenced
for discrepancies. Then, tables are created for each watershed in the Gulf of Mexico
Program's Priority Watershed Inventory. In all, 67 tables are created. These tables
include a segment identification number for viewing the water segment on a map, a link
to the URL for "Surf Your Watershed", name of the state basin the segment is located,
the watershed the segment is located, the name of the waterbody, the number and type of
impairment for that segment, and the year the impairment is listed. Delisting information
is also listed in the tables for segments that have that information. The information
available for delisting includes the segment identification number, the waterbody name,
what impairment was delisted, the basis for the delisting, and a link to the total maximum
daily load (TMDL) document if it exists. Segments that are shared among two or more
watersheds are highlighted for easier recognition when counting the number of segments
duplicated among watersheds.
Shapefiles are acquired from the states that contain the 303(d) (e.g., impaired) segments
for that state. The segments listed in the state shapefile, however, do not always match
EPA's ("Surf Your Watershed", WATERS Expert Query Tool, and Decision
Documents). Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to contact the state for additional
shapefiles that contain missing segments. The data are grouped by watershed with a
name to represent the area in the shapefile (ex. 2002_03170009_303d_line). New fields
are added to the shapefile such as segment identification number (matches the number
from the tables), TMDL status ("Impaired Water Segment," "TMDL Completed,"
"Restored"), number of impairments for that segment, list of impairments for that
-------
segment, and the waterbody name for that segment. Maps are then generated to show the
number of impairments in each watershed. "Impaired Water Segments" are visible with a
red cross hatch, "TMDL Completed" has a yellow cross hatch, and a "Restored" appears
with a blue cross hatch. Each segment is labeled with the identification number found in
the shapefile and the table. All maps include the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) number
and the HUC name, legend, scale bar, inset map, GMPO logo, disclaimer for the state if
one was provided, and the date the map was created. In all, 67 maps are created.
QA/QC Procedures: There are three EPA data sources: "Surf Your Watershed,"
"WATERS," and Decision Documents. Each data source is cross referenced with the
other two sources to ensure there are no discrepancies in the listed impaired segments.
The EPA data sources are from EPA- reviewed state documents.
Data Quality Reviews: There are no outside reviews of the report generated. The tales
and maps generated for each cycle are uploaded to the "Surf Your Gulf Watershed"
website located on the Gulf of Mexico Program home web page. This "Surf Your Gulf
Watershed" details the impaired segments for the 13 priority areas.
Data Limitations: Data are updated every two years on "Surf Your Watershed" and in
WATERS Expert Query Tool due to the fact that states submit a 303(d) report every two
years on the status of the impaired segments in each state as required in Clean Water Act
(CWA) 305(b) report.
Error Estimate: None identified.
References:
EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/map2.cfm
EPA's WATERS (Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results) Expert
Query Tool http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
EPA GMPO's Surf Your Gulf Watershed" http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/surfgulf/
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of acres of important coastal
and marine habitats.
Performance Database: Coastal Emergent wetlands border the Gulf of Mexico and
include tidal saltwater and freshwater marshes and mangroves. Encompassing over two
million hectares (five million acres or more than half of the national total), the Gulf of
Mexico coastal wetlands serve as essential habitat for a diverse range of species.
Total wetland loss (coastal and inland) for the five Gulf States from 1780 until 1980 was
estimated to be 40 million square kilometers, approximately 50%. Between 1985 and
1995 the southeastern U.S. lost the greatest area of wetland (51% of the national total).
-------
Coastal emergent wetland loss for Louisiana represents 67% of the nation's total loss
(177,625 hectares or 438,911 acres) from 1978 to 1990.
The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves its acreage goal each year by cooperative funding
of projects that result in the enhancement, protection or restoration of coastal habitat.
This coastal habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses,
mangroves, dunes and maritime forest ridge areas.
Data Source: The amount of acreage restored, protected and enhanced by the Gulf of
Mexico Program is derived from the individual project's Statement of Work contained
within the project proposal. This acreage is then verified by the EPA Project Officer and
by the project's Program Manager through site visits during the life of the project,
quarterly reports submitted to the Gulf of Mexico Program Office (GMPO), aerial
photography, ground-truthing, and digital topographic. Data verification occurs at the end
of the project too.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves this goal
successfully each year by cooperatively funding restoration projects with our multiple
federal and state program partners. Our partners additionally follow required QA/QC
procedures and routinely conduct site visits to provide verification of the acreage
restored. These partners and our process to restore, protect and enhance Gulf coastal
habitat include:
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office State Proposal Solicitation through Requests for
Proposals (RFPs)
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program: NOAA Community Restoration Grant
Program Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS)
QA/QC Procedures: The projects that are funded are required to provide a QA/QC plan
if the restoration project involves monitoring. In those cases, EPA has documented
Assistance Agreements with QA/QC approved plans. NOAA additionally requires
QA/QC plans if the projects involve scientific monitoring. Additionally, the EPA
Project Manager is required to conduct site visits, during the duration of the project to
verify actual acreage restored, protected and/or enhanced. QA/QC includes but is not
limited to, aerial photography, groundtruthing, transect growth monitoring and routine
site visits of all funded projects.
Data Quality Reviews: Award Process for supporting habitat at restoration projects
through partnership cooperative agreements.
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office Competitive RFPs
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program:
A) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program
Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS). The Gulf of Mexico Foundation,
NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Program established a Steering Committee to review and
select the NOAA CRP projects for funding. The steering committee consists of EPA, all
GEMS State Managers, NOAA, and USFWS staff and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation.
-------
Ensure there is no duplication of funding and to seek opportunities for brokering with
other restoration grant programs.
Review of the restoration data occurs in the field and through field analysis by the project
manager as the project progresses. This review is accomplished through measures such
as aerial photography, groundtruthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits
of all funded projects. Data are verified by EPA and our Program Partners through site
visits and quarterly reports.
Data Limitations: Limitations of use for the data are carefully detailed by the data
provider and project manager for each project that yields acreage. Images and
topographic data have routinely been used for restoration projects and few to no
limitations are expected from these datasets beyond that of image resolution.
Error Estimate: The acreage is documented by the project managers for each project in
required EPA Quarterly Reports. Data are subject to a second verification following the
completion of the project.
References:
Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of
the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 1998
The Gulf Community Restoration Partnership Program (GCRP). This program provides
acreage through the combined efforts of the NOAA Community-Based Restoration
Program and the Gulf of Mexico Program's Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS)
program and the Gulf States natural resource agencies and the Gulf of Mexico
Foundation.
Website: http://www.gulfmex.org/restoration.htm
Handley, L., Altsman, D., and DeMay, R., eds., 2007, Seagrass Status and Trends in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2006-5287, 267 p.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of
the FKNMS will maintain chlorophyll a (CHLA) levels at less than or equal to
.35 ugl-1 and light clarity (Kd) levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1
• At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal waters of
the FKNMS will maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less
than or equal to .75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal
to .35 uM
Performance Database: As required by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and Protection Act of 1990, EPA and its partners developed a comprehensive long-term
-------
status and trends monitoring program as a critical component of the Water Quality
Protection Program for the FKNMS. The comprehensive monitoring program was
initiated in 1995 and includes water quality, coral reef and seagrass components. Annual
results are reported each year on a fiscal- year basis. Historically, EPA has provided the
majority of funding for the three monitoring projects, but other agencies (e.g., NOAA,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and state/local government agencies) also
provide significant funding.
Data Source: The Water Quality and Seagrass Monitoring Projects are conducted by
Florida International University's Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) and
the Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project is conducted by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute. EPA provides funding via cooperative agreements and the
other government agencies provide funds via federal assistance agreements or contracts.
Monitoring data are collected each year on an annual or quarterly basis depending on the
project. Results of each monitoring project are reported in annual reports. The data for
each monitoring project is collected and archived by staff of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Research Institute under a cooperative agreement with the EPA. In addition, the
principal investigators for each monitoring project have developed Web sites where
anyone can go and review the data
(http://ocean.floridamarine.org/fknms_wqpp/)
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The comprehensive monitoring program for
the FKNMS was developed by a large group of technically competent and knowledgeable
scientists familiar with the aquatic environment of the Florida Keys and the coral reef
ecosystem. For each monitoring project, EPA worked closely with recognized experts to
develop a detailed scope of work including sampling locations and frequency,
parameters, field and analytical methods, quality assurance/quality control, data
management, and reporting. The monitoring program was designed to provide
representative coverage of the entire 2,900 square nautical miles of the Sanctuary. In
general, monitoring sites were located throughout the FKNMS on a stratified-random
basis and were determined to be compatible with EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program protocol
(http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/reports/epa904r01002.html). The overall monitoring
program was designed to address the primary objective of the comprehensive long-term
monitoring program for the FKNMS - to provide data needed to make unbiased,
statistically rigorous statements about the "status of and trends in" selected water quality
conditions and biological communities in the Sanctuary. For the monitoring program, the
null hypothesis is that there is no change over time. The field data are tested against the
null hypothesis that no change has occurred. All three monitoring projects (water quality,
coral reef and seagrass) have demonstrated the ability to detect change over time and are
suitable for determining the health of the coral reef ecosystem of the FKNMS.
QA/QC Procedures: The principal investigators for each monitoring project developed
and submitted to EPA a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the data
generated are accurate and representative of actual conditions and the degree of certainty
of the data can be established. The QAPPs were developed in accordance with EPA
-------
guidance documents and the principal investigators consulted with the Regional QA/QC
Officer and the Project Officer for the monitoring projects. It was required that the
QAPP be approved by EPA before any work could begin on a monitoring project.
Data Quality Review: Through the QAPP, the principal investigators explicitly commit
to incorporating procedures that will reduce random and systematic errors. In addition,
the principal investigators document quality assurance procedures and evaluate the
quality of the data being generated by the monitoring projects. Further, the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAG) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary reviews and
assesses the monitoring projects and the data they produce on a regular and continuing
basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project - a power analysis was
done at the beginning of the project to determine the limit of detectable change for the
point count method used to determine the percent stony coral cover within the FKNMS.
The estimate of actual performance is accurate to 2.4%.
Water Quality Monitoring Project - the project collects data from 154 sites within the
FKNMS on a quarterly basis. Therefore, error estimates for the 2005 baseline values are
mostly due to the large spatial variability and seasonal temporal variability. Because
water quality data are not normally distributed, the project uses the median as the
measure of central tendency. For chlorophyll a, the interquartile range (IQR) is 0.29 and
the median absolute deviation (MAD) is 0.12. The light attenuation kd IQR is 0.12 and
the MAD is 0.05. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen has an IQR of 0.50 and a MAD of 0.26.
For total phosphorus, the IQR is 0.90 and the MAD is 0.04.
Seagrass Monitoring Project - benthic plant community structure is measured using the
rapid visual assessment technique known as the Braun-Blanquet method. This method is
very quick, yet it is robust and highly repeatable, thereby minimizing among-observer
differences. The Braun-Blanquet method has proven to be precise enough to detect
subtle interannual variations yet robust enough to survive changes in personnel. A
summary metric or species composition indicator (CSI) that assesses the relative
importance of slow-growing plants to community composition is being computed for the
30 permanent seagrass monitoring sites. During the first 10 years of monitoring, this CSI
index had an average of 0.48 + 0.04 (+ one standard error of the mean). The significance
of changes in the SCI will be assessed using these distribution parameters. Elemental
content (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus) of seagrass leaves is determined by cleaning
the leaves of all epiphytes, drying the leaves at low temperature, and grinding to a fine
powder. Elemental content is then measured using established methods and calculating
on a dry weight basis. Analyses are run in duplicate using independent NIST-traceable
for each determination. If the duplicate analyses differ by more than 10%, additional
samples are run. A summary elemental content indicator metric or elemental indicator
(El), which is the mean absolute deviation of the N:P ratio of seagrass tissue from 30:1 is
computed for the 30 permanent monitoring sites. In 2006, the mean El was 8.28 + 1.47
-------
(j^one standard error of the mean). The significance of changes in the El will be assessed
using these distribution parameters.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The database management system for
the Water Quality Protection Program of the FKNMS is geographic information based
(GIS) and used to record the biological, physical, and chemical results from the
comprehensive monitoring projects. The data from the three monitoring projects are
collected and archived by the database managers at the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Research Institute. The data archives component encompasses both raw and synthesized
data. The data integration component incorporates the synthesized data, both tabular and
geospatial. These data are integrated into a GIS to facilitate further analysis by scientists
and managers. The results data contained within the database integration system are
documented with project level metadata as well as attribute or parameter level metadata.
Tools are being further developed to allow users to query data by location, date and
parameters collected. The overall goal of the database management system is to provide
a data integration system that takes into account the varying levels of data produced by
the various monitoring projects and the needs of both managers and researchers.
References:
http: //sere. fiu. edu/wqmnetwork/
www. serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork
http ://www. sere. fiu. edu/wqmnetwork/
www.fiu.edu/~seagrass
http://ocean.floridamarine.org/fknms_wqpp
http ://research.myfwc.com/features/category_sub. asp?id=23 60
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total
phosphorus, including meeting the 10 parts per billion total phosphorus
criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent
limits to be established for dischargers from stormwater treatment areas.
Performance Database: As required by the Clean Water Act and Florida's Everglades
Forever Act, the oligotrophic Everglades marsh within the Everglades Protection Area
must meet the newly adopted 10 parts per billion numeric criterion for total phosphorus.
EPA approved the criterion and its application methodology in 2005. A monitoring
program to determine whether the criterion is in fact being met throughout the Everglades
marsh is necessary to determine whether the water body can be expected to meet its
designated use, whether phosphorus concentrations are stable or are increasing, whether
the concentrations in impacted areas are improving, and whether watershed phosphorus
control efforts costing in excess of $1 billion are effective.
Data Source: Water quality is monitored throughout the Everglades marsh at dozens of
long-term monitoring stations. These stations are sampled cooperatively in a joint effort
by Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management
-------
District, Everglades National Park, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Some of
these stations were monitored previously by the United States Geological Survey
beginning as long ago as 1953. Results of monitoring are reported in annual reports. The
data are collected and are available to the public through a web site. Stormwater
Treatment Area (STA) effluent phosphorus monitoring is in place as required by Florida
and NPDES permits.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The monitoring program was developed by
scientists, with decades of experience regarding Everglades water quality and ecology,
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water
Management District, Everglades National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
and the EPA. The marsh monitoring program is designed to provide representative
coverage of the entire 2,000 square mile freshwater Everglades. The monitoring program
is capable of detecting temporal trends in phosphorus condition throughout the
Everglades. The null hypothesis is that there is no change over time.
QA/QC Procedures: Field samples are collected by standard sampling protocol and
analytical results are from accredited laboratories using standard methods. In addition, a
series of ongoing laboratory round-robin exercises are overseen by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Field and lab protocol are also periodically
reassessed by a Technical Oversight Committee that includes five Florida and federal
agencies. Quality Assurance Project Plans are in place.
Data Quality Review: Water is sampled in the field by Department of Interior or South
Florida Water Management District technical personnel using established Standard
Operating Procedures. Data are subject to ongoing quality review by the interagency
Technical Oversight Committee on a regular and continuing basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Annual average total phosphorus concentrations are accurate to within
0.1 part per billion.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Interagency dialogue and oversight
provide ongoing reassessments that evaluate data credibility and completeness.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/
http:/www. sfmd.gov
http:/my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2954.19761074&_dad=portal&_schema=POR
TAL&navpage=home
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/assessment/index.htm
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/everglades/roundrobin.htm
http://wwwalker.net/tfSelected%20Publications
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories that has
access to continuous drinking water meeting all applicable health-based drinking
water standards measured on a four quarter rolling average basis
Performance Database: SDWIS (Safe Drinking Water Information System) is the
database used to track this performance measure throughout the United States now
including the Pacific territories. SDWIS contains basic water system information:
population served, and detailed records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the statute's implementing health-based drinking water regulations. However, because of
computational idiosyncrasies in CNMI (including double counting of bottle water service
with utility-provided water, and areas which lack 24-hour water service), we apply a
hand-correction to the CNMI figures.
Data Source: Health-based violations are reported by the territories. Percentage of
population served by community drinking water systems receiving 24-hour water is
obtained through direct communication with territory (CNMI only). Population data are
obtained from U.S. Census data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Our method is to calculate the performance
measure as the percentage of people in the territories served by public water systems who
are receiving 24-hour water that meets all health-based drinking water standards (i.e., no
health-based violations). We provide an aggregate value for the three Pacific territories
using a weighted average based upon their populations. Our first main assumption is that
a public water system must provide 24-hour water on a regular basis before it can provide
drinking water that meets all health-based drinking water standards. This is an
assumption that generally does not need to be made in the rest of the United States; and
in the Pacific territories is an issue now solely in the CNMI. For example, the island of
Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands (population 70,000) is the only municipality of its
size in the U.S. without 24-hour water (all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water
or rain water as the main source of their drinking water). This method is suitable for the
Pacific islands because the situation is unique to the Pacific Island territories, and is one
of the underlying reasons for the need to track access to safe drinking water. Our second
main assumption is that health-based violations reported by the territories are correct. Our
third main assumption is that US Census data are correct.
QA/QC Procedures: The territories follow QA/QC procedures in the data submitted to
EPA for entry into the SDWIS database. Routine data quality assurance and quality
control analysis of SDWIS by the Agency revealed a degree of non-reporting of
violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result, the Agency is now tracking and
quantifying the quality of data reported to SDWIS/FED as part of the Agency's National
Program Guidance. The Agency will continue to follow and update the Data Reliability
Implementation/Action Plan. EPA will continue to review the results of on-site data
verification (and eDV) and initiate a discussion with individual states concerning any
potential discrepancies with the data reported to SDWIS/FED. The on-site DV will be
-------
conducted as described in the Data Verification Protocol. Even as improvements are
made, SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance with Safe
Drinking Water Act requirements for program management, the development of drinking
water regulations, trend analyses, and public information.
Data Quality Reviews: Although the territories are responsible for reviewing and
assuring quality of health-based violation reporting, EPA periodically communicates
directly with public water systems to corroborate the data (and continues to do so as part
of ongoing enforcement and compliance efforts). EPA is also in direct communication
with the CNMI to obtain percentage of population receiving 24-hour water. The US
Census is responsible for reviewing and assuring population data quality. There is no
other peer review or external data quality review.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) potential for inconsistencies in
reporting health-based violations among territories; and (b) inaccuracies due to imprecise
measurement of percentage of population served by public water systems that receives
24-hour water.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Regarding SDWIS data, EPA has worked with the
territories of Guam and CNMI over the last few years to improve performance on data
collection and entry. Regarding percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, EPA
continues to work closely with the CNMI public water system and the CNMI Division of
Environment Quality to both more accurately assess percentage of population receiving
24-hour water, and to provide 24-hour water to an increasing percentage of the
population.
References:
USEPA SDWIS/FED: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/indexx.html
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of time sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
will comply with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
total suspended solids (TSS) (2005 Baseline: the sewage treatment plants in the
Pacific Island Territories complied 59 percent of the time with BOD and TSS
permit limits.)
Performance Database: ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) is used to
track this performance measure.
Data Source: DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports) provided to EPA on a quarterly
basis by the Pacific Island wastewater utilities are the data source.
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Permit conditions require each of the
wastewater utilities to use EPA approved sampling methods. DMRs are self-reported by
the Pacific island utilities to EPA on a quarterly basis for major facilities (greater than 1
million gallons per day of discharge). The main assumption is that the self-reported data
are accurate.
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific island utility labs has and follows QA/QC
procedures for this data.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews the DMR reports to make sure they are thoroughly
filled out. There are occasional EPA field audits of the utility labs.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies among
personnel in performing sampling and analysis; and (b) incomplete data due to lack of
sampling or lack of lab equipment.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with each of the
utilities to improve sampling and analysis of BOD and TSS, and to improve reporting of
DMRs.
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific
Island Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open
and safe for swimming. (2005 Baseline: beaches were open and safe 64 percent
of the 365-day beach season in American Samoa, 97 percent in CNMI and 76
percent in Guam.)
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking Advisories,
Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields identifying the
beaches for which monitoring and notification information are available and the date the
advisory or closure was issued, this enabling trend assessments to be made. The database
also identifies those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health) Act (P.L. 106-284} grant. EPA reports the information
annually, on a calendar year basis, each May. The calendar year data are then used to
support fiscal year commitments (e.g., 2009 calendar year data are used to report against
FY 2010 commitments).
Data Source: Reports provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by the Pacific Island
environmental agencies (Guam EPA, American Samoa EPA, CNMI DEQ) are the data
sources.
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Pacific Island environmental agencies use
EPA-approved methods to take bacteriological samples at beaches and analyze them in
their labs. They put together reports that include beach sampling data and number of days
beaches were closed or had advisories posted based on bacteriological concerns. The
Pacific Island environmental agencies submit these reports to EPA on a quarterly basis.
EPA inputs data from the report into the PRAWN database. The main assumption is that
the Pacific Island environmental agencies are following the EPA-approved methods for
sampling and analysis. The secondary assumption is that EPA's contractor is correctly
entering data from the reports.
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific Island environmental agencies has EPA-
certified laboratories. Part of the certification process is establishing and adhering to
QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA recertifies the labs on a periodic basis. Data quality from all
lab procedures is reviewed.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) reporting inconsistencies within
the database among jurisdictions which report on a quarterly basis (as the Pacific
territories do) and on an annual basis.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with the Pacific
territorial environmental agencies on changes in format which make it easier to enter data
into the PRAWN database.
References:
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2007 Swimming Season." EPA-823-
F-08-006. Washington, DC May 2008. Available at
http:/www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2007/national.html
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants. "EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC:EPA, June 2002. Available at
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all .pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and acres of upland
habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed.
Performance Database: The database used to track habitat restoration in the Lower
Columbia River watershed is titled "Regional Restoration Project Inventory". The
database includes at a minimum the following data fields: Project title, lead organization,
project partners, latitude/longitude, and acreage. Results are updated annually on a fiscal
year basis.
-------
Data Source: Habitat restoration data are reviewed through direct communication with
multiple agencies and partners conducting habitat restoration projects in the Lower
Columbia River watershed, and the database is cross-referenced with other state,
regional, and federal funding sources and project tracking databases. Due to the
numerous partners involved in each project, and their involvement in the maintenance of
the database, the confidence in the data accuracy and reliability is high.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Habitat restoration data in the Lower Columbia
River watershed is collected and tracked via direct and ongoing communication with the
network of agencies and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the watershed.
The main assumption for this method is that all agencies and organizations conducting
habitat restoration in the watershed are included in the database review. The acreage
indicator chosen is suitable for progress towards our goal because the restoration projects
included in the database protect, enhance, and restore both wetland and upland habitat.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures do not apply to tracking the Regional
Restoration Project Inventory database. The database is reviewed by entities involved in
or conducting habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia River watershed. The
database is maintained annually, reviewed internally, distributed to regional entities
conducting habitat restoration, and referenced when reporting several times annually.
There is no Quality Management Plan or Quality Assurance Project Plan associated with
this indicator.
Data Quality Reviews: The Regional Restoration Project Inventory is a database and
reporting tool that employs the available level of project detail by multiple agencies and
organizations. This tool is used internally and amongst agencies and organizations
conducting habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River watershed, therefore peer
reviews, audits, and reports by external groups are not applicable.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies in or non-
standard methods of acreage measurement, due to multiple agencies and organizations
reporting; (b) inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of acreage; (c) significant
variability in the data, due to advancements in acreage calculation methods and therefore
variable accuracy over time; (d) incomplete or inaccurate data from agencies and
organizations that choose not to submit or review project data.
Error Estimate: Based on the level of involvement from agencies and organizations
conducting habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River, the quantitative estimate of
actual performance and calculation of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The tracking of habitat restoration project data in the
Lower Columbia River watershed will improve with the advancement of tracking
technologies, including GIS analysis, and the maintained communication with agencies
and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the watershed. The management of
the database will adapt to these advancements when technically and feasibly possible.
-------
References: Lower Columbia River Restoration Inventory can be found at:
http://www.lcrep.org/habitat_inventory.htm
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Clean-up acres of known contaminated sediments [Columbia River]
Performance Database: EPA's Regional Office will maintain a database of Columbia
River data from the sources described below. Clean-up data are likely to be generated at
Bradford Island, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); Portland Harbor, an EPA Superfund site;
and other small RCRA clean-up sites managed by ODEQ on the Columbia River.
Data Source: Information will be collected from state, federal and local agency
partners. Information from the Bradford Island clean-up will be collected by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ). Information from the Portland Harbor Superfund site will be collected by EPA
and other partners. Information from RCRA clean-up sites will be collected by ODEQ.
EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund sites; for clean-up sites managed by other
entities, like the Corps of Engineers, EPA accepts the information received but does not
independently verify the information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Acres are the unit of measurement used.
Acreage reporting will be from EPA for Superfund work efforts and for non-Superfund
work, acreage will be provided by state, federal and local agency partners.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Regional staff collects primary data based on site
documents related to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at
Superfund sites; for clean-up sites managed by other entities, like the Corps of Engineers,
EPA accepts the information received but does not independently verify the information.
There are Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for individual sediment clean-up
projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this
measure, are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by
contractors under strict oversight by responsible parties (e.g., the Corps). The actual
clean-up work is carefully overseen by parties with huge financial interests at stake and
there is little realistic opportunity for significant error in counting acres addressed. Also,
there is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as this is an objective of these clean-up
projects.
Data Limitations: The actual clean-up work is carefully overseen by parties with huge
financial interests at stake and there is little realistic opportunity for significant error in
counting acres addressed. There is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as that is
the objective of these cleanup projects.
-------
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data. No significant error in
counting acres addressed expected.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsi.htm
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/tcpwebreporting/Default.aspx
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of
contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
Performance Database: Reduction in the mean concentration of contaminants of
concern will be achieved through a variety of activities implemented by the States of
Washington and Oregon, and EPA, specifically:
• Washington will be contributing to the target reduction through the implementation of
two Water Quality Improvement Projects/Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),
specifically the Yakima River TMDL and Walla Walla River TMDL. More
information on the WA Ecology TMDL program can be found at:
http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/wq/links/wq_assessments.html
• Oregon will be contributing to the target reduction by the implementation of Pesticide
Stewardship Partnership (PSP) in the Walla Walla River basin.
Data Sources:
• Data for the Washington portion of the Walla Walla River can be found in the
Washington Ecology Walla Walla TMDL Evaluation (Technical Report) 04-03-032
(page 47) available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0703036.html. The Yakima
River data is available at http://www.ecv.wa.gov/biblio/0703036.html. WA Ecology
is seeing a decrease in contaminants from their TMDL work and that data can be
found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/index.htm.
• Oregon's Walla Walla pesticide monitoring data can be found in Oregon DEQ's
Laboratory Analytical Storage and Retrieval (LASAR) database:
http://deql2.deq.state.or.us/lasar2/. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) developed a report on the 2005-2007 findings; a report on the 2005-2008
findings is expected soon. 2006 data was used as the baseline year, the year the
monitoring locations were developed.
QA/QC Procedures: Oregon DEQ and Washington Ecology will be using standard data
collection procedures for data collection and reporting for the Pesticide Stewardship
Partnership and TMDL implementation targets.
WA Ecology monitoring work follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPPs). A
major part of the WA Ecology report addresses data quality and collection procedures -
pages 21-44 of the Walla Walla report and pages 15-20 of the Yakima report.
-------
The Oregon DEQ Walla Walla pesticide water sampling and laboratory is conducted in
accordance with a QAPP for the Pesticide Stewardship Partnership monitoring program
and a specific Sampling Analysis Plan (SAP) for the Walla Walla project. Oregon DEQ
has QA Officers that review these plans and ensure their sufficiency. The Walla Walla
pesticide monitoring is more of a targeted, rather than probabilistic monitoring effort.
Data Quality Review: There have not been any audits of the Oregon work efforts or
data. WA Ecology was audited but this data was not a part of that audit.
Data Limitations: The major limitation for this effort is that there is no specific funding
to do this work. In 2006, EPA and state partners have identified some ongoing work that
might be used to show a 10% reduction in only 5 sites in an immense river basin. These
5 sites are not representative of toxics reduction actions or understanding in the Basin;
they only reflect very site specific situations. For Oregon DEQ, sampling and analytical
problems do occur with the pesticide monitoring projects, such as an occasional broken
lid on a sample jar or problems with the sample recovery rates during extractions.
However, these problems are identified and documented in DEQ's sampling reports. If
these problems or errors result lower quality data, the data is "graded" lower by DEQ.
The grade of the data is then documented in DEQ's LASAR database. Further, if data
quality doesn't meet minimum thresholds it's not included in the DEQ database.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
• To find out more about Washington's Water Quality Improvement Projects
(TMDLs), please visit the following site:
http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/wq/links/wq_assessments.html.
• To find out more about Oregon Pesticide Stewardship Partnership Program, please
visit this site: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/factsheets/community/pesticide.pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Restore the acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands
[Puget Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is closely related to acres protected or restored
for the National Estuary Program (NEP) measure. Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in
the NEP. The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a standardized
format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and restoration
activities and specifying habitat categories. The National Estuary Program On-Line
Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to
submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been reported since
2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
-------
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound
NEP. It works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and
protected. EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help ensure that
information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact
being achieved.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the
habitat reported, or of the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground
progress. Habitat acreage does not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat
quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality) represent the only indicator of ecosystem
health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an important surrogate and a measure of
on-the-ground progress made toward EPA's annual performance goal of habitat
protection and restoration in the NEP. "Restored and protected" is a general term used to
describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include created areas,
protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed restriction,
submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings, and
anadromous fish habitat increases.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their
own reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are
responsible for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration).
The NEP staff is requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to verify
the numbers. EPA then confirms that the national total accurately reflects the
information submitted by each program. EPA actions are consistent with data quality and
management policies.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information may be reported
inconsistently (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration
definitions), acreage may be miscalculated or misreported, and acreage may be double
counted (same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency or need to
be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the
habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure of on-the-
ground progress made by the NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects
are located in each NEP study area. Not only does this assist both the individual NEP
and EPA in obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it provides a basis from
which to begin exploring cases where acreage may be double-counted by different
-------
agencies. An on-line reporting system NEPORT has been developed for the NEPs use
that will assist in tracking habitat projects. EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data
fields with those of the National Estuarine Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the
President's Wetlands Initiative, developed for interagency use.
References: Links to NEPORT can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in acres
of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water
quality [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is related to acres protected or restored for the
National Estuary Program (NEP). Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. The
Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has developed a standardized format for data
reporting and compilation, defining habitat protection and restoration activities and
specifying habitat categories. Upgrading shellfish bed classifications is included. The
National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database
that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT
can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been
reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound
NEP. It works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and
protected. With respect to shellfish bed classification the Washington State Department
of Health (WDOH) is the entity that determines and tracks the status of shellfish beds.
EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP implementation to help ensure that information
provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of shellfish
beds with harvest restrictions lifted is not a direct measure of habitat quality, but it is a
measure of improving water quality with respect to fecal coliform contamination. This
acreage serves as an important surrogate for water quality and human health protection in
Puget Sound.
QA/QC Procedures: The Washington Department of Health does the sampling and
analysis, which forms the basis of their shellfish bed status determinations. They have
established QA/QC procedures. NEP staff utilize the State reported data on areas that
have been the subject of restoration efforts.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews of the primary data have been
conducted by EPA.
-------
Data Limitations: Data are limited to the commercial shellfish beds which are
monitored by the WDOH.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these projects
are located in each NEP study area. An on-line reporting system NEPORT has been
developed for the NEPs' use that will assist in tracking habitat projects.
References: Links to NEPORT can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: EPA's Regional office will maintain a database of Puget
Sound contaminated sediment remediation using the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS) used by the
Agency's Superfund program. The CERCLIS database contains information on the
types of contaminated sediments/ toxics present in selected sites, as well as some baseline
data against which remediation results may be derived.
Data Source: The CERCLIS database tracks Superfund sites only. Superfund site
information includes remedial designs, feasibility studies and projects at contaminated
sediment sites where remedial actions plans have been implemented. The CERCLIS
database also tracks Federal completions, e.g., Superfund sites where federal clean-up
activities have been completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CERCLIS database documents the
remedial actions and Federal completions of projects to clean-up Superfund sites. Within
Puget Sound, a Federal completion could correlate to a specific contaminated sediment
site and the number of acres that were remediated. Actual data on the number of acres
remediated will be in background documents related to the particular remediation project.
Activities completed, which include prioritized contaminant remediation (removal,
capping, or other remedial strategies), will count in terms of acres, or portions of an acre
remediated. Other databases, such as the EPA Brownfields program database and the
RCRA-Online database may be useful as additional sources of contaminated sediment
remediation data for the Puget Sound sites. These additional databases may be
considered in the future.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the Superfund staff based on site
documents related to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at
Superfund sites. There are standard operating procedures and data control procedures
applied to CERCLIS data. Data are reviewed quarterly and the data control plan is
-------
reviewed annually. There are Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for individual
sediment clean-up projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this
measure, are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by
contractors under strict oversight by EPA. There is close monitoring of sediment data
quality, as this is an objective of these clean-up projects too. EPA does periodic audits or
quality reviews on Superfund site data and the CERCLIS database.
Data Limitations: At this time, data on contaminated sediment remediation within
Puget Sound in the CERCLIS database are limited to sites where an EPA Superfund
remediation plan has been developed and implemented. The CERCLIS database only
recently began tracking the number of acres cleaned up and the specific sites where
contaminated sediment remediation has occurred. A new module for tracking this site-
specific data was added to the database in June 2007.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: At present, the EPA Regional office plans to use the
existing CERCLIS database to manage data for the performance measure.
References: Link to the Superfund Site Information System at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Number of states using a common monitoring design and appropriate
indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the
effectiveness of national programs and policies (program assessment
measure)
Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system.
Data Source: Data are derived from internal assessments of state activities.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data for this measure are collected based on
assessments of the number of states using Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) data to monitor the condition of ecological resources. EMAP data are
generated, in part, by a cooperative agreement with twenty-three states to conduct the
National Coastal Assessment Monitoring survey, which introduces a standard protocol
for monitoring the ecological condition of estuaries; including, probabilistic sampling
designs, response designs for indicators, laboratory analyses, statistical analyses and
reporting formats.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA anticipates by 2007 all states will have adopted
and implemented the National Coastal Assessment Monitoring survey. Improvements in
the management of contracts, coordination of the shipment of samples, and distribution of
resulting data are now performed by EPA to give states without capability the
opportunity to partner with the agency.
References: EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html (last
accessed on July 20, 2007)
US EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National
Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2001-2004. EPA/620/R-01/002.
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
Ecological Research Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gOv/omb/expectmore/summary/l0001135.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health
outcomes long-term goal (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data long-
term goal (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the aggregate and
cumulative risk long-term goal (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible
subpopulations long-term goal (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support efficient and effective
clean-ups and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security
initiatives
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA health
assessments, (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air Quality
Criteria/Science Assessment documents (program assessment measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical
Support Documents (program assessment measure)
• Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change to
air quality, (program assessment measure)
-------
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and
relevant EPA office needs for causal diagnosis tools and methods to
determine causes of ecological degradation and achieve positive
environmental outcomes, (program assessment measure.)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and
relevant EPA office needs for environmental forecasting tools and methods to
forecast the ecological impacts of various actions and achieve positive
environmental outcomes (program assessment measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and
relevant EPA office needs for environmental restoration and services tools
and methods to protect and restore ecological condition and services to
achieve positive environmental outcomes (program assessment measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Safe Pesticides,
Safe Products program's long term goal one.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Safe Pesticides,
Safe Products program's long term goal two.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Safe Pesticides,
Safe Products program's long term goal three.
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management Systems (internal database)
or other internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of
key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs
being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates
of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hh.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007).
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hhra.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007).
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/sp2.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007)
Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
Human Health Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Global Change Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Human Health program publications rated as highly cited
papers (program assessment measure).
• Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly cited publications (program
assessment measure).
• Percentage of SP2 publications in "high impact" journals (program
assessment measure).
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications rated as highly-cited
publications.
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications in "high-impact" journals.
• Percentage of Global publications rated as highly cited publications.
• Percentage of Global publications in high impact journals.
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are
conducted to obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are
completed using Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI provides access to a unique and comprehensive
compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data derived
from Thomson's databases.
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI
employs both total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals
gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a
recognized authority for evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that
provide a systematic, objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their
impact and influence in the global research community. The two key measures used in
this analysis to assess the journals in which a program's papers are published are the
Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency
with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year. The Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance,
especially when compared to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other
key agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development's Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program,
available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/sp_bibliometric_1206.pdf
(last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research
and Development's Ecological Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/eco_full_analysis.pdf (last accessed on
July 20, 2007)
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Research
and Development's Human Health Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/human_heal th_bibliometric_121306.htm
1 (last accessed August 16, 2007)
Human Health Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
EPA Ecological Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gOv/omb/expectmore/summary/l0001135.2007.html (last
accessed January 24, 2008)
EPA Pesticides and Toxics Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10009012.2007.html (last
accessed January 24, 2008)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
-------
• Average cost to produce Assessment documents (efficiency measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of cost per Air Quality Criteria/
Science Assessment document.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
Program's efficiency measure tracks the cost to produce AQCDs for use by the Office of
Air and Radiation in developing their policy options for the NAAQS. Total FTE and
extramural dollar costs are cumulated over a five year period and divided by the number
of AQCDs produced in this time period, to create a moving annual average $/AQCD.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to
measure the quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Risk Assessment Program Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA closure
to submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while maintaining a
credible and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by
external expert review) (efficiency measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of grants processing time.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Human Health Program's efficiency
measure tracks the average time to process and award grants.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to
measure the quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (program assessment
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Global Research Program, Pesticides and
Toxics Research Program, and Ecological Research Program have all adopted this
efficiency measure. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data
are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and actual performance
for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned program
outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference
between what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing
the difference between planned and actual performance by the difference between
planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and
estimated costs when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects
only the key program outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a
program. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated,
though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
-------
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for States, tribes, and
relevant EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation and
achieve positive environmental outcomes, (program assessment measure)
• Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for States,
tribes, and relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological impacts of various
actions and to achieve environmental outcomes, (program assessment
measure)
• Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and methods
for States, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and restore ecological
condition and services to achieve positive environmental outcomes, (program
assessment measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated through an independent expert review panel process.
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) provides rating of program progress on
each long-term goal.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: These measures capture the assessment by an
independent expert review panel of the appropriateness, quality, and use of the program's
research under each long-term goal. Using a well-defined, consistent methodology, the
BOSC provides a qualitative rating and summary narrative regarding the performance of
each long-term goal. Rating categories include: Exceptional, Exceeds Expectations,
Meets Expectations, and Not Satisfactory. Full ratings are expected approximately every
4 years, although the BOSC will provide progress ratings at the mid-point between full
program reviews.
QA/QC Procedures: All long-term goal ratings are determined using a well-defined,
consistent methodology that was developed in conjunction with EPA, OMB, and the
BOSC.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
-------
References: Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used HHRA
peer-reviewed health assessments (program assessment measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A list of the research program's publications
from the past ten years are searched against EPA's electronic dockets to determine if any
regulatory decisions and other key agency documents have referenced the Human Health
Risk Assessment program's health assessments.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Not all EPA's regulations and key decisions are posted in the
electronic dockets and, therefore, the impact and influence of the program's publications
would not be captured in this measure. Additionally, the publication citations within the
regulations can be inconsistent and often do not reflect the research models, tools or
personal scientific support that informed the regulatory decision.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Risk Assessment Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 25, 2008)
-------
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate air pollutants through concluded enforcement
actions.
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate water pollutants through concluded water
enforcement actions.
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate toxics and pesticides through concluded
enforcement actions.
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate hazardous waste through concluded enforcement
actions.
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal
Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and
administrative civil enforcement actions.
Data Source: The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in
Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepare after conclusion of
each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS
in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of
concluded enforcement cases. The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which,
when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how
the case concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s); the costs involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the
settlement; the amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered
through the action, if applicable.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions resulting in
immediate pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, staff estimate the amount of
reduction at the time the enforcement action concludes. For enforcement actions
resulting in pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated long-term, staff estimate the
reduction for an average year. EPA staff use established statute methodologies, e.g. Clean
Water Act (CWA), to calculate the pollutant reductions or eliminations. The calculation
determines the difference between the current out of compliance quantity of pollutants
released and the post enforcement action in compliance quantity of pollutants released.
EPA then converts the difference into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation
processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data
quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications data
calculation methodology.
-------
Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years.
To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's
information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies
on performance measurement, OECA instituted a semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review
process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and
compliance information.
Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS project an
estimate of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated if the defendant carries out the
requirements of the settlement. (Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement
is not available.) The estimates use information available at the time a case settles or an
order is issued. In some instances, EPA develops and enters this information on pollutant
reduction estimates after the settlement or during continued discussions over specific
plans for compliance. Due to the time required for EPA to negotiate a settlement
agreement with a defendant, there may be a delay in completing the CCDS.
Additionally, because of unknowns at the time of settlement, different levels of technical
proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA's expectation is that the overall amount of
pollutants reduced or eliminated is prudently underestimated based on CCDS
information. EPA also bases the pollutant estimates on the expectation that the
defendant/respondent implements the negotiated settlement agreement.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This
data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system
but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record
for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICIS-
NPDES includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data.
States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance
with current data and system capabilities. The migration process is projected to be
completed in FY2013. As a state's data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does
the state's NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009, ICIS-
NPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability
to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.
This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and
timeliness of the DMR data in ICIS-NPDES. To date ICIS-NPDES is the national
system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of
Mexico facilities in Region 6.
References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life
Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994,
-------
reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management); CCDS, Training Booklet, issued
November 2000; Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000; and Guide for
Calculating Environmental Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update
issued August 2004 available: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf;
Information Quality Strategy and OC=s Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement
and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality
Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA,
ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct
environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment
for air as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
• Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct
environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment
for water as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
• Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct
environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment
for land as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.
Performance Database: ICIS FE&C and manual reporting by regions.
Data source: ICIS FE&C captures behavioral change information resulting from EPA
enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct EPA compliance assistance,
and federal inspections resulting in direct or preventative environmental benefits. EPA
collects most of the essential data on the behavioral change information through the
Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS), the Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data
Sheet (CACDS), or the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which Agency staff prepare
after the conclusion of each action. Similar to the CCDS form, the ICDS and CACDS
forms consist of specific questions which, when completed, describe specific activities
taken by the facility operator or the compliance assistance recipient which result in direct
environmental improvements or pollution prevention.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The ICDS collects information on key
activities and outcomes observed by EPA at facilities during on-site inspections and
evaluations. This includes information about identified deficiencies (potential violations)
communicated to the facility by the inspector during an on-site inspection/evaluation;
whether the facility addressed any deficiencies identified during an on-site
inspection/evaluation; and whether the inspector provided compliance assistance during
an on-site inspection/evaluation. The information from the completed ICDS form is
either entered into ICIS or reported manually (some regions participating in the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) database pilot use this method). Also, Expedited
Settlement Offer (ESO) data is used when calculating the total number of regulated
entities that change behavior from inspections and evaluations that result in direct
-------
environmental benefits, e.g. getting into compliance with appropriate regulations as a
result of complying actions.
EPA compliance assistance providers use the Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data
Sheet (CACDS) to report information from direct compliance assistance delivered by
EPA. The form records EPA on-site observations of entities reducing, treating, or
eliminating pollution during on-site direct compliance assistance. The EPA on-site
assistance provider uses the CACDS form to record the type of compliance assistance
provided, the entity receiving the compliance assistance, and the date compliance
assistance occurred. ICIS stores information from the completed CACDS forms.
The CCDS documents whether the defendant/respondent, in response to an order for
injunctive relief or otherwise in response to an enforcement action will: (1) implement
controls that will reduce pollutants; and/or (2) improve environmental management
practices to curtail, eliminate or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future.
The performance measure is a summation of the enforcement, compliance monitoring,
compliance incentives, and direct EPA compliance assistance activities resulting in direct
environmental benefits or pollution prevention.
QA/QC: The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental Information
Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal
screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit
reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how
data are calculated.
Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years.
To satisfy the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's
information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies
on performance measurement, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive
certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a
quarterly data review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of
EPA's enforcement and compliance information.
Data Limitations: EPA counts the number of enforcement activities resulting in reduced
pollution or improved environmental management practices under the assumption that the
defendant will implement the negotiated settlement agreement.
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: Same information on improvements to ICIS FE&C
in the above performance measurement section.
-------
References: US EPA, ICIS Compliance Assistance Module, February 2004; US EPA,
Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance Information System Guidance,
February 20, 2004. US EPA, 2005 Guidance Addendum for Reporting Compliance
Assistance in the ICIS, March 2005.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of recidivism.
• Percent of closed cases with criminal enforcement consequences (indictment,
conviction, fine or penalty).
Performance Databases: The Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) stores criminal
enforcement data in an enforcement-sensitive database which contains historical data on
all criminal enforcement prosecutions. The data used for all criminal enforcement
performance measures are in the CCRS database.
Data Source: Data entered into the CCRS for the "percent of closed cases with criminal
enforcement consequences" come from the Investigative Activity Report (IAR) which
tracks a criminal investigation from the time EPA opens a case. The IAR indicates when
EPA files a case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) (i.e., an indictment by a grand
jury) or when DOJ obtains criminal information (i.e., the defendant will plead guilty).
Case closing checklists occur when a case concludes. Data dealing with the fine or
penalty from the final Judgment and Commitment Orders ("J&C") are the formal
sentencing documents issued by the U.S. District Court. The J&C also serves as the
sentencing data for the performance measure on the "percentage of recidivism".
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The methodology for the "percent of
recidivism" measure employs a rolling 12 year baseline (i.e., initial targets and baselines
were based on FY 1997-2008 data, while subsequent baselines will be based on FY 1998-
2009, FY 1999-2010, etc). The methodology identifies "repeat" violators under any of
the environmental statutes [e.g. a defendant convicted of a CWA violation in FY 2000
that was subsequently convicted (not merely indicted, but subsequently acquitted) of a
subsequent RCRA violation in FY 2007 meets the definition of a "recidivist."] The
methodology distinguishes between a "recidivist" (whose second crime occurs after
prosecution and sentencing for the initial violation) and defendants who commit multiple
environmental crimes that overlap chronologically. The definition of a "recidivist" also
covers a defendant who — after prosecution for an initial environmental crime — may
subsequently commit a civil environmental violation. OECA's ICIS database is the
source for data on defendants who meet the definition of a "recidivist."
QA/QC Procedures: All criminal enforcement special agents receive training on the
accurate completion of IAR reports and the entry of criminal case data into the CCRS.
Quarterly case management reviews by senior management assure the accuracy of the
data contained in the reports. The Criminal Investigations Division (CUD) has a process in
place for document control and records management.
-------
Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs). QMPs for the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) and its Criminal Investigation Division
(CID), were submitted to the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in July 2009
and are under review.
Data Quality Review: OCEFT's Center for Strategic Environmental Enforcement
(CSEE) reviews all criminal enforcement data used for compiling performance measures
by comparing data entered into the CCRS from the field offices with the final J&C order
prepared by the U.S. District Court at the time a defendant is sentenced.
Data Limitations: One possible limitation on the calculation of the "recidivism"
measure is the difficulty to identify all appropriate and relevant business relationships
among possible repeat violators. It is possible that the information collected during a
criminal prosecution may not obviously "tie" subsequent and initial violators together,
especially for corporations that have multiple components or for individuals who may try
to hide their ownership status of small businesses that violate the law.
The only other possible data limitation for either measure - likely to occur only very
infrequently - is a successful appeal of convictions (that can take several years to move
through the legal system) which requires a recalculation of results for a given fiscal year.
Error Estimate: Not available.
New & Improved Data or Systems: A new feature of the Criminal Case Reporting
System includes a new tab that consolidates information from the Case Closing Checklist
and the CCRS to incorporate data elements previously gathered through the criminal
enforcement Case Conclusion Data Sheets.
References: Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). J&C Orders available through
the U.S. District Courts.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Quantity of priority chemicals reduced from all phases of the manufacturing
lifecycle through source reduction and/or recycling (program assessment
measure)
• Number of pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment per
Federal government costs (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: A Microsoft Access database is used to track data collected
under Information Collection Request no. 2050-0190: Reporting Requirements under
-------
EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), renewed December
2009.
NPEP efficiency measure: The denominator of the efficiency measure, or the cost to
perform such actions, equals program cost minus quantifiable benefit per pound of
reduction. Program cost is calculated to be the cost for Federal program implementation
(FTE + grant and contract funding). Industry cost is neutral. Quantifiable benefits
include information collected through NPEP success stories on resource savings (e.g.
water, energy) resulting from implementation of waste minimization technologies and
processes.
Data Source: As part of their partnership agreement, NPEP partners provide
information concerning what priority list chemicals they commit to reduce, the process
through which the reduction/recycling will be achieved, and the time frame for
completing projects. When the commitment is achieved they provide EPA with a
"success story" which identifies the actual achievement, confirms the process used to
achieve the reduction, and provides additional information of interest to the general
public and other technical personnel concerning how the achievement was met.
Methods and Assumptions: Information is reviewed by EPA staff for reasonableness
based on expertise and knowledge of the industry and/or best professional judgment. In
cases where information is initially incomplete or lacks substantiation, EPA staff may
conduct site visits to ensure that the commitment is reasonable.
Suitability: EPA chemical management national experts are trained in industrial or
chemical engineering and have significant experience in evaluating industrial processes
for chemical management potential and efficiency. Their professional judgment forms
the basis for accepting the applicants' chemical management commitment and
achievement.
QA/QC Procedures: All enrollment data fields are centrally tracked via a Headquarters
managed Microsoft Access database. Regions have their own methods/systems for
tracking data. Headquarters data are periodically reviewed by EPA Regional
coordinators to ensure that they accurately reflect partner status. Corrections to the
central database are made when errors are identified.
Data Quality Reviews: Information is reviewed by EPA staff for validity. In cases
where information is initially incomplete or lacks substantiation, EPA staff may conduct
site visits to ensure that the commitment is reasonable.
Data Limitations: The program does not have direct assurance of the data accuracy
because time series measurements of partner processes and chemical management
methods are not made by EPA staff.
Error Estimate: N/A
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A.
References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery. Chemical Management Branch.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/npep/index.htm (accessed December 22, 2009)
http://www.epa.gov/osw/rcc/national/toxics.htm (accessed December 22, 2009)..
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants
(program assessment measure)
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants (program assessment
measure)
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program
participants (program assessment measure)
• Metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or
offset by P2 program participants (program assessment measure)
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs include Green Chemistry (GC), Design for
the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE), Regional Offices, Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange (P2Rx), Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP), Partnership
for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH), and Green Suppliers Network (GSN). Each of these
programs operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with
others to reduce waste at the source, before it is generated. The programs are designed to
facilitate the incorporation of pollution prevention concepts and principles into the daily
operations of government agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations,
and individuals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic metrics database ("matrix")
that allows organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on
alternative feedstocks, processes, and safer chemicals. The database was designed to store
and retrieve information on the qualitative and quantitative environmental benefits and
economic benefits that alternative green chemistry technologies offer. The database was
also designed to track the quantity of hazardous substances eliminated as well as water
and energy saved through implementation of alternative technologies. Green chemistry
technology nominations are received up to December 31 of the year preceding the
reporting year, and it normally takes 6-12 months to enter new technologies into the
database.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE has a spreadsheet for all of its programs (i.e.,
Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant Alternatives, the
Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI), and Auto
Refmishing. The spreadsheet content varies by project, and generally includes measures
comparing baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as information on
partner adoption and/or market share of safer alternatives. For example, the DfE
-------
Formulator Program tracks the move to safer chemicals (such as pounds of chemicals of
concern no longer used by partners, and conversely pounds of safer ingredients), and
reductions in water and greenhouse gas emissions, where available.
Green Engineering (GE): GE will be developing an electronic database to keep track of
environmental benefits of GE projects including pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced
gallons of water, dollars saved, and metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
eliminated.
Regional Offices: EPA's Regional Offices' P2 results come primarily through the grants
they award, and results from direct projects managed by EPA Regional staff. Regional
Offices use a standardized spreadsheet to track, manage, and report results from P2 and
Source Reduction grants. End of year grant data is aggregated and made available to the
public through the Pollution Prevention website. The program is actively engaged in a
project to improve the collection, tracking, and reporting of P2 grant results. The project
will examine end user needs and existing technologies in an effort to streamline grant
reporting, and improve the transparency and overall quality of the data.
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx): There are 8 regional P2 Information
centers which coordinate and supply information and, training for local and state
technical assistance providers and businesses. These centers report to EPA through grant
reports and host regional modules that contribute to the National P2 Results system. The
P2RX centers have trained and assisted organizations in entering their data. Any
program can enter measures of outputs and outcomes into this data system. Over 30
state-level P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data.
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH) Program: The Partnership for Sustainable
Healthcare (PSH) program is the new name for EPA's continued effort with the health
care sector, as the former "Hospitals for a Healthy Environment" (H2E) program (now
the Practice Green Health (PGH), a fully independent non-profit organization.). In FY
2008, EPA's financial relationship with PGH ended, so new results will not be counted.
2004-2007 results will reoccur with 2011 being the last year any results will be counted.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): GSN utilizes a Customer Relationship Management
database (CRM) in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) to collect performance
metrics for the program. The CRM collects economic information and environmental
metrics such as the value of environmental impact savings identified, energy and water
conserved, water pollution reduced, air emissions reduced, hazardous waste reduced
(Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use reduced (Ibs/year). In collaboration with the
Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, and the Small
Business Administration, we will work to ensure that the economic and environmental
benefits are clearly demonstrated.
-------
Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP): Results for Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP) come from the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), and the Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). FEC uses the FEC Administrative
Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting information from FEC partners.
EPP staff run these reporting data through the Electronics Environmental Benefits
Calculator (EEBC) to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy
conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. Manufacturers of
EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered
products to the Green Electronics Council (GEC). The EPP team obtains this data from
the GEC, runs these sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous
pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on
an annual basis. FY 2010 data will be collected for the FEC in January 2011 and for
EPEAT in April 2011.
Data Sources: GC: Industry and academia sponsors submit nominations annually to the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the annual Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is
included in the nomination packages. Qualitative and quantitative benefit information is
pulled from the nominations and entered in the metrics database.
DfE: The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the project. For example, in
DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partners provide proprietary information on the
production volume of their improved formulations. For other partnerships, data sources
typically include technical studies (e.g., Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle
Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information from sources such as industry
associations and materials/equipment suppliers. For SDSI GHGs, industry partners will
provide data on the amount of GHG emissions reduced through partner activities.
GE: Data come from sources and partners including the regions, academia and industry.
For example, for the GE activites related to the pharmaceutical industry, data will be
supplied by individual companies or sites and other partners from the regions and
academia. A pilot project with Region 2 and Pharmaceutical operating facilities and
members of the Puerto Rico Manufacturer's Association will apply GE practices and
measure their process changes through a GlaxoSmithKilne/North Carolina State
University (GSK-NCSU) model.
Regional Offices: P2 Grant and Source Reduction grant data are secured from grant
applications, grant semi-annual and final reports and sub-grantee and facility level
performance information.
P2Rx: P2Rx centers report their outputs and outcomes in grant reports and assist State
and Local program reporting through the regional modules of the P2 Results system.
The centers conduct web-based surveys of customers, pre and post testing of training
audiences and follow up services provided with customer satisfaction surveys. The
centers evaluate long term impact of their services and information using case studies.
-------
PSH: Because the PSH program is a voluntary program, the information collected is
voluntarily submitted by hospital Partners to PGH, which provides the information to
PSH.
GSN: Data are collected by the GSN Review Team during a GSN review at the
company's facility. This team consists of a "lean" manufacturing expert from the NIST
MEP system and an environmental expert usually from the state environmental agency or
its designee. The metrics are recorded in the final report generated for the company's
use and also are entered into the CRM database by the NIST MEP center. All MEP
centers are grantees to the Department of Commerce and must adhere to DOC's
requirements for the collection and handling of data. These requirements are reinforced
by the terms of the "Request for Proposals" to which each center (e.g., grantee) responds
and which must be followed during a GSN review.
EPP: For FEC, the data source is federal partners. For EPEAT, the data source is
manufacturers of EPEAT registered electronic products.
Methods and Assumptions: GC: The information from the nominations is collected and
tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems. The performance data, while
collected by individual centers, is acceptable performance measurement for the program,
as it addresses the specific measures and reflects an aggregated and quality reviewed
dataset.
DJE: Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and
industrial processes. For DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partner-provided data
on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total reductions of hazardous
chemicals achieved through the program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture Flame
Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern provides
the measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the
methods/assumptions for each project's measures. For SDSI GHGs, partner-provided
data on GHG emissions reductions will be aggregated to determine the total reduction in
GHG emissions achieved through the program.
GE: The information (e.g. solvent stream data) will be supplied by individual companies
or sites and/or other partners from the regions or academia. The GSK/NCSU models will
utilize input information from pilot companies to calculate environmental benefits. The
pilot companies, in collaboration with the GSK/NCSU model developers and the GE
program will also collectively review these materials for any information that could be
used as business case studies and other resource materials.
Regional Offices: No models, assumptions, or statistical methods are employed with
Regional data. Grantees use a variety of methodologies in collecting their data. However,
the program now requests grantees to include descriptions of the methodologies and
assumptions behind the grant results which will increase consistency in data collection.
-------
P2Rx: Data reported by state and local technical assistance programs in the National P2
Results system is collected and compiled by the regional centers. EPA grant support of
these regional centers contributes to national P2 progress by providing an infrastructure
of P2 information and training. To capture this indirect effect of EPA's role, 10% of the
results reported through the National P2 Results system counted in EPA performance
measures.
PSH: The data come from program Partner hospitals through PGH. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
GSN: The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on a
quarterly basis in September, December, March, and June. The data are aggregated to
maintain confidentiality for all companies participating in the program. No models or
statistical methods are employed.
EPP: For FEC, the program assumes that partners report accurate data. For EPEAT, the
program assumes that manufacturers report accurate annual sales data, and that the GEC
accurately reports this data to the EPEAT program. The assumptions needed for the
EEBC to translate environmental attributes and activities into environmental benefits are
relatively extensive and are laid out in the EEBC (e.g., the average lifecycle of a
computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.). The assumptions were reviewed
when the EEBC underwent the original peer review process, and were reviewed and
updated during the development of version 2.0 of the EEBC.
In September 2008, the P2 program went to the Science Advisory Board for a
1 9
consultation on the issue of recurring results . Based on their feedback , the P2 program
has determined that it is appropriate to count recurring results but only for a pre-defined
amount of time (i.e. not indefinitely). Each P2 program has made a determination for an
appropriate and reasonable timeframe to count the recurring benefits of program
intervention. These timeframes may differ by program, but each program will
consistently adhere to the timeframes described below. Every reporting year, each
program breaks out new annual results and adds them to recurring results form previous
years efforts to report the annual rate of performance for that year. The recurring-results
timeframe for each program is described below. These timeframes are inclusive of first
year results.
The EPP program derives benefits from the purchase, use, and disposal of green
electronics products. Currently, results are counted over a 5 year product life-cycle. As
additional electronics products are explored, benefits will be counted according to
respective product life-cycles. The Green Chemistry captures benefits from innovative
green chemistry technologies and related processes. Because of the relatively slow
innovation rate and long life-span of technologies once adopted, the Green Chemistry
1http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.nsf/3F4214C1239651BC852574AD003FC2FO/$File/Charge
+for+Pollution+Prevention+Program+Measures+9-3-08+Meeting.pdf
2http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F6A39F03493E4EA38525750C0074E448/$File/EPA-SAB-
09-005-unsigned.pdf
-------
program generally counts results over a 10 year timeframe. However, in cases where
new public information becomes available, benefits for award-winning technologies are
updated. For example, if a technology is withdrawn from the market that quantity is no
longer counted. Similarly, if news of an increased benefit because of increased market
penetration becomes available, the magnitude of the benefit is increased to reflect that
change. The Green engineering program is promoting implementation of solvent reuse
and recovery practices in pharmaceutical companies. These actions result in both
environmental and economical benefits and will be recurring as facilities will not revert
back to former, less economical practices. These results will be counted for 8 years until
these practices become standard operating practice. The Design for the Environment
program has many different projects that generate results. The largest of these, the
Formulator Program, is set up to recognize safer products through application of the DfE
label. Partner companies sign a three-year partnership agreement so these results will be
counted over 3 years. The DfE Automotive Refmishing Partnership collaborates with the
Regions on training and compliance assistance workshops that help businesses and
schools implement best practices to reduce air toxics in the workplace and community.
Changes are counted over a 5 year period to account for the time it takes to provide
training and equipment, improve performance, and standardize new processes. DfE's
Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership and Lead-Free Solder LCA will count results for
7 years. This period was chosen to be consistent with the Modified Accelerated Cost
Recovery System (MACRS) recovery period for similar product types3. DfE's SDSI
GHG will count recurring results for three years. The period was chosen because SDSI
GHG Champions will also have DfE Formulator Program recognition, where results are
counted for three years. Regions count recurring results from grant-based and direct
project based P2 technology and practice changes because these changes are expected to
endure multiple years. The Program is using an average lifetime of equipment, process,
or practice changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved. The Program has
conducted preliminary bench-marking to ascertain the range of standard expected
lifetimes of the technologies and practices adopted as a result of Regional action. The
range is wide, and documentation of results varies depending on the nature of the grant
activity. As a result, the Program is using a conservative 4 year period for an average
duration of these technology and practice changes. The P2Rx Center is counting
recurring results and is also using an average lifetime of equipment, process, or practice
changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved. Due to the aggregated nature of
results reported in the P2 Results Data System, and the relative lack of transparency
concerning the underlying activities reported in this system, the Program is taking the
most conservative approach and counting results for 2 years. EPA's financial relationship
with Practice Green Health ended in FY 2007 and no new results are being collected
beyond FY 2007. 2004 through 2007 data will be counted for 5 years because hospitals
are greening their operations and equipment on a facility basis. These improvements
result in financial gains and are unlikely to be reversed in future years. The Green
Suppliers Network counts recurring results from facility implementation of equipment
and process changes that are expected to endure multiple years. GSN is using an average
lifetime of equipment or process change as a factor to apply to all results achieved.
3 'Couper, J.R., Process Engineering Economics.2003, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 423.
(see page 180)
-------
Preliminary bench-marking indicates that a 6-year period is an appropriate average
lifetime for GSN technology and process changes. In the future, the Center may be able
to access case-specific data efficiently to determine specific depreciation rates for
equipment and process changes installed.
Suitability: Hazardous pounds reduced, dollars saved, gallons of water and metric tons
of carbon dioxide reduced represent the four Pollution Prevention measures. These
annual measures have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's draft 2009-2014
strategic plan and are suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability to
show annual progress towards reaching these long term goals.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as well as under the Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality Management Plan for
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances," November 2008), and the programs will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use
only.
GC: Data undergo a technical screening review by the Agency before being uploaded to
the database to determine if the data adequately support the environmental benefits
described in the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards application. Subsequent to Agency
screening, nominations are reviewed by an external independent panel of technical
experts from academia, industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated into the database. The
panel is convened by the Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society,
primarily for judging nominations submitted to the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program and selecting winning technologies. Quantitative benefits
are periodically reviewed to be sure they were accurately captured from the nominations.
DJE: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being added to the
spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.
GE: Data will be reviewed by the partners including industry, academia, and the regions.
Data will also be reviewed by GE HQ and Regional staff to ensure transparency,
reasonableness and accuracy. For the pharmaceutical project, data will be internally
reviewed by companies and may also be reviewed by model developers. It is an essential
goal and foundation for this project that this information is transparent, verifiable and
within the public domain.
Regional Offices: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff before being entered into an aggregate reporting spreadsheet. Data for
projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional
personnel. Additional QA/QC steps are to be developed through the use of standard
-------
operating procedures. Also, the program has been working with the Regional offices to
develop consistent QA procedures, which can be applied at the beginning of the grant and
throughout the life of the grant. For instance, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)-
lite guidance was developed and is now in use in several Regional offices.
P2Rx: The P2Rx centers follow Quality assurance project plans for their grants and have
established standard operating procedures for development of web site statistics and
information products. SOPs are on this web site: http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfm
Data entered into the National P2 Results system will undergo technical screening review
by P2Rx centers and EPA regional and Headquarters staff. The users guide for the P2
Results system is posted on the Internet:
http://www.p2rx.Org/measurement/info/F IN AL_user_guide.pdf
GSN: Data are collected and verified under NIST MEP's QA/QC plan. Each NIST MEP
Center must follow QA/QC requirements as grantees to the Department of Commerce.
Additionally, the environmental data are collected under the specific requirements of the
state environmental agency participating in each GSN review. Each state agency utilizes
their own QA/QC plan for data collection because they utilize the data for purposes in
addition to the GSN program.
EPP: The EEBC underwent internal and external review during their development
phases. The EEBC was also reviewed and beta-tested during the development of version
2.0. For FEC, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how to report data.
Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA staff when they are submitted. For EPEAT,
manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products sign a Memorandum of Understanding in
which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide.
Data Quality Review: OPPT has developed an official response to OIG
recommendations published in their January 2009 report "Measuring and Reporting
Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need Improvement." Overall,
the report found the program deserving of its initial Moderately Effectively program
program assessment rating and includes recommendations such as developing additional
and refining existing measures, establishing more comprehensive QA/QC procedures,
and addressing improvement opportunities.
Data Limitations:
GC: Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program are in
the public domain. As a result, nominees are often reluctant to include proprietary
information on cost differences or other quantitative benefits. Because the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge is a voluntary, public program, it cannot routinely accept or
process CBI. If the program stakeholders feel they need additional information during the
judging for the awards program, they can and do ask EPA to request additional
information from the nominee. EPA will then ask the company to share confidential
information with CBI-cleared OPPT staff in order for EPA to conduct the verification.
-------
Often technologies are nominated before or soon after they become commercially
available. Implemented benefits (those that have occurred due to the adoption of the
nominated technology) are counted separately from potential benefits that may occur
upon future adoption of the technology.
DfE: Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or technologies are claimed CBI by
the developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial pollution
prevention practices on a wider scale.
GE: There may be instances in which submitted data is not clearly quantified and/or
available due to various reasons such as CBI. However, efforts will be made to minimize
CBI information in working with the facilities to have more generic case studies. In
these instances, the data have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting.
Regional Offices: Limitations arise from the reliance on data source information provided
by individual state and other P2 grantees. These programs vary in attention to data
collection from sources within their jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC
procedures. The program expects to develop standard operating procedures for the
collection and management of grant results.
P2Rx: Limitations arise from variability in individual state and local P2 programs and
their reporting sources, QA/QC procedures, and what is reported. Differences may arise
in how programs quantify environmental benefits, based on state or local legislative
requirements.
GSN: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual programs to gather data. These
programs vary in attention to data collection from sources within their jurisdictions, data
verification and other QA/QC procedures. The GSN program has attempted to address
these concerns by strengthening the data collection requirements in the Request for
Proposals that MEP centers must be respond to in order to perform a GSN review.
EPP: FEC has a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting. EPEAT relies on
manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products, and the GEC, for data reporting.
Error Estimate:
Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and therefore error
estimates are not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
A new greenhouse gas calculator was developed to capture greenhouse gas reduction
from a wide range of on-the-ground activities including: electricity conservation;
renewable energy and green power; fuel specific reductions and substitutions, chemical
specific reductions and substitutions, as well as process change resulting in reduced
electricity usage.
-------
DfE: DfE has implemented an emissions calculator for the DfE Automotive Refinishing
Partnership. The emissions reduction calculator computes individual or aggregate
quantities of toxics eliminated and cost savings based on annual material usage (e.g.
gallons of paint) before and after a business switches to best practices or safer alternative
paint products. SDSI GHGs will be a new set of results for DfE in FY 2011. This
program will focus on encouraging products that reduce the release of GHG emissions
Regional Offices: The program's system for estimating and reporting outcome results has
been substantially improved with the development of new calculators, tools, and clearer
methodologies contained in the P2 measurement guidance. The program designed a P2
cost calculator to improve the process of projecting and reporting results related to cost
savings.
P2Rx: Currently the centers are developing tracking and user identification approaches to
better characterize the customers using their web site information. The centers currently
track customers served through phone calls, emails, trainings and evaluate changes in
awareness, knowledge, and behavior resulting from their services. Standard operating
procedures for these approaches are being developed.
GE: The program is utilizing GlaxoSmithKline/North Carolina State University
GSK/NCSU models (Jimenez-Gonzalex C, Overcash MR and Curzons AD. J. Chemistry
Technology Biotechnology. 71:707-716 (2001) and plans to combine these models with
OPPT tools such as ChemSTEER to accurately utilize inputs from pharmaceutical
companies in the estimation of environmental benefits.
EPP: The EEBC is was revised and version 2.0 was released in March 2009. These
revisions were made to ensure that the EEBC reflects the best available data related to
EPEAT-registered and ENERGY STAR-qualified products; and to add additional
functionality to the EEBC. A complete list of revisions is available in the EEBC and it is
currently being converted from an Excel spreadsheet to a Web-based tool, to make it
more user friendly.
References:
GC: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/ DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
GE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/ P2 Programs:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm ,
http://www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/Networkg/ PSH: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm
GSN: www.greensuppliers.gov EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the
FEC web site at: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm Information
about the EEBC is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm
-------
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web site at:
http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdfRegional:
http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/local.htm
P2RX: P2 Results user guide:
http://www.p2rx.org/measurement/info/FINAL user guide.pdf
SOPs for P2RX centers: http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfrn
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Annual reductions of Design for the Environment (DfE) chemicals of concern
per federal dollar invested in the DfE program (program assessment
efficiency measure)
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program
by comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals achieved to program resources,
including FTE, overhead and extramural dollars spent.
Performance Database: The DfE program has an evaluation spreadsheet that is
populated for all its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture
Flame Retardant Alternatives, the Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents Stewardship
Initiative (SDSI), and Auto Refinishing). Key data elements used to calculate the
efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous chemicals reduced and spending
information obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The efficiency measure
numerator is the total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced and the denominator is the
annual DfE program resources expended.
Data Source: The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the project and the
partner industry. For example, in DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partners
provide proprietary information on the production volume of their improved
formulations. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies
(e.g., Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption
information from sources such as industry associations. Resource data are from OPPT
Finance Central
Methods, Assumptions: Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of
chemicals and industrial processes. For DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partner-
provided data on production volumes are aggregated to determine the total reductions of
hazardous chemicals achieved through the program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture
Flame Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern
provide the measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes
the methods/assumptions for each project's measures. Program resources are calculated
directly from EPA figures. The efficiency measure corresponds directly to the program
goal of cost-effectively reducing hazardous chemical use and can compare cost
effectiveness year-to-year.
-------
Suitability: Hazardous pounds reduced is one of four Pollution Prevention annual
measures which have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's draft 2009-2014
Strategic Plan and are suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability
to show annual progress towards reaching the long term goals. This measure is suitable
because reductions in cost per pound of hazardous chemicals reduced are expected to
result from improvements in program implementation. These cost reductions will enable
EPA to achieve the goals of the Design for the Environment program with greater
efficiency.
QA/QC Procedures: Design for the Environment operates under EPA's Information
Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines and
under the OPPT Quality Management Plan.
Data Quality Reviews: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE staff before
being added to the program tracking spreadsheet.
Data Limitations: The data submitted voluntarily by partners are confidential. The
information made public is limited to aggregated values.
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data are added to the program
tracking spreadsheet and averaged with preceding years.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet contains Confidential Business Information.
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Energy savings per dollar invested in the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC)
program, (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database:
FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting
information from FEC partners. FEC partners report the number of EPEAT gold silver
and bronze registered products purchased; the number of computer products with power
savings features turned on; and the number of computer products reused, recycled, and
disposed of, through standardized reporting forms available at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm and submitted through an online,
password-protected web site. The environmental benefits of these reported activities are
then calculated by EPA staff by running summary data from submitted partner forms
through the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator (EEBC) to calculate BTUs of
-------
energy reduced, conserved, or offset on an annual basis. Spending information is
obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database.
Data Sources
For FEC, the data source is federal partners who fill out reporting forms online through a
web-system with built in error checking. Partners report data at the facility level as
opposed to the Agency level. There are hundreds of participating federal facilities spread
across dozens of federal Agencies. Participating federal facilities are required to submit
the reporting form, annually as part of their partnership. Some agencies further require
their facilities to submit the FEC reporting form as part of their implementation of
Executive Order 13423 which seeks to make federal environmental, energy and
transportation management more sustainable. Financial resource data are obtained from
from OPPT Finance Central database.
Methods and Assumptions:
The Federal Electronics Challenge program assumes that partners report accurate data.
However, FEC data undergoes thorough internal technical review before these data are
run through the EEBC. EPA staff provides guidance and technical assistance to partners
in filling out reporting forms.
The assumptions needed for the EEBC to translate environmental attributes and activities
into environmental benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the EEBC (e.g.,
the average lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.). The
assumptions were reviewed when the EEBC underwent the original peer review process,
and were reviewed and updated during the development of version 2.0 of the EEBC.
EPA measures the efficiency of the Federal Electronics Challenge by comparing
reductions of BTUs of energy achieved to program resources, including FTE, overhead
and extramural dollars spent. The efficiency measure numerator is the annual BTUs of
energy conserved, reduced, or offset and the denominator is the annual FEC program
resources expended. The unit of measurement is expressed as Million BTUs per dollar.
Suitability: The indicators used for this measure are suitable because reductions in cost
per million BTUs of energy reduced are expected to result from improvements in
program implementation such as improved outreach and coordination efforts to federal
partners. These cost reductions will enable EPA to achieve the goals of the Federal
Electronics Challenge with greater efficiency.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as well as under the Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality Management Plan for
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances," November 2008), and the programs will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use
only.
-------
Data Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs
operate under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines and under the OPPTS's Quality
Management Plan (QMP).
For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking function on the
online form. FEC staff also review the data to ensure that it is sensible, given the context.
Data Limitations:
FEC has a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
Error Estimate:
Statistical approaches are generally not used and therefore error estimates are not
available.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The EEBC was revised by EPA and version 2.0 was released in March 2009. These
revisions are intended to ensure that the EEBC reflects the best available data related to
EPEAT-registered and ENERGY STAR-qualified products; and to add additional
functionality to the EEBC. A complete list of revisions is available in the EEBC, and it is
also being converted from an Excel spreadsheet to a Web-based tool, to make it more
user-friendly.
References:
EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs
in Indian country. (Strategic Target & program assessment measure)
• Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and
assessment activities in Indian country. (Strategic Target & program
assessment measure)
• Percent of tribes with an environmental program. (Strategic Target &
assessment measure)
• Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per
million dollars, (program assessment efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has a
suite of secure Internet-based applications that track environmental conditions and
program implementation in Indian country as well as other AIEO business functions. One
application, the Tribal Program Management System (TPMS), tracks progress in
-------
achieving the performance targets under Goal 5 Objective 3 of EPA's 2009-2014
Strategic Plan - "Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country" and
other EPA metrics. EPA staff use TPMS to establish program performance commitments
for future fiscal years and to record actual program performance for overall national
program management. The system serves as the performance database for all of the
strategic targets, annual performance measures and program assessment measures.
Data Source: Data for the TPMS are input on an ongoing basis by Regional tribal
programs and EPA headquarters.
The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the TPMS
can be found in the files of the Regional Project Officers overseeing the particular
programs that are being reported on. For example, documents that verify water quality
monitoring activities by a particular tribe will be found in the files of the Regional Water
106 Project Officer for the tribe.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes implementing Federal regulatory
environmental programs in Indian country" tracks the number of "Treatment in a manner
similar to a State" (TAS) program approvals or primacies and execution of "Direct
Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs)" that are active during the
fiscal year. The measure is based on a count of tribes, and a given tribe may have more
than one TAS program, and may have DITCAs as well. Because of the tribes with
multiple qualifying programs, the total number of TAS designations plus DITCAs in
Indian country is higher than the number of tribes with regulatory environmental
programs as reported for this measure. The data are reported by the Regions at mid-year
and at the end of the year.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental
monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country," reports the number of Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for monitoring activities that have been approved by
Regional Quality Assurance Officers, and active during the fiscal year. All ongoing
environmental monitoring programs are required to have active QAPPs, so QAPPs are
used as a surrogate for the monitoring activities that occur in Indian country. However,
tribes often have more than one QAPP, so the count of total QAPPs is always higher than
the performance measure which counts the tribes that have QAPPs. Regional tribal
program liaisons obtain information from Regional Quality Assurance Officers and input
data into the TPMS. The data are updated and reported on during mid-year and at the end
of each fiscal year.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with an environmental program," counts
tribes that have an EPA-funded environmental office and/or coordinator staffed in the
current fiscal year and that also demonstrate environmental program activities by having
completed at least one of the following indicators:
• completed a Tier III Tribal Environmental Agreement (TEA) that specifies actions by
EPA and the Tribe, and includes monitoring, as evidenced by a document signed by
the tribal government and EPA;
-------
• established environmental laws, codes, ordinances or regulations as evidenced by a
document signed by the tribal government;
• completed solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities; or
• a completed inter-governmental environmental agreement (e.g. State-Tribal
Memorandum of Agreement (MO A), Federal-Tribal MO A).
The environmental program measure thus requires two steps, the establishment of an
environmental office and the completion of an indicator activity. EPA Regional project
officers managing tribes with an environmental program, input data, classified by tribe,
into the TPMS, to derive a national cumulative total. Data are input at mid-year, and
again at the end of the year.
The performance measure, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian
country per million dollars," is calculated annually by AIEO staff summing the number
of tribes receiving General Assistance Program (GAP) grants, the number of TAS
approvals or primacies, the number of DITCAs, and the number of GAP grants that have
provisions for the implementation of solid or hazardous waste programs, all active during
the fiscal year, and dividing that sum by the annual GAP appropriation (less rescissions
and annual set-asides). Some tribes have multiple environmental programs, and these
programs are counted individually.
Methods and Assumptions: TPMS contains all the information for reporting on AIEO
performance measures and program assessment measures. The information is entered
into standard query fields in the data system. Thus, there is no allowance for differences
in reporting across EPA's Regional offices, and national reports can be assembled in a
common framework. The assumption is that the authorized person who enters the data is
knowledgeable about the performance status of the tribe.
Suitability: These measures represent progression toward the goal of improving human
health and the environment in Indian country by helping tribes plan, develop and
establish environmental protection programs.
QA/QC Procedures: The procedures for collecting and reporting on the Goal 5
Objective 3 performance measures require that program managers certify the accuracy of
the data submitted by the regions to AIEO. This certification procedure is consistent with
EPA Information Quality Guidelines (See
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html for more information.)
Data Quality Reviews: The official who certifies information in TPMS, submitted by
EPA's Regional offices to AIEO, is the Regional Administrator. However, in some cases
the Regional Administrator may wish to delegate the signatory authority to another
official such as the Regional Indian Coordinator. This procedure generally follows
guidance provided in EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (See
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html for more information.)
-------
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an
ongoing basis, there may be a time lag between when a tribal program status has been
achieved and when the data are entered into the TPMS. Even though the Regional
Project Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the end of the reporting cycle the
TPMS will be "locked down," with the locked dataset reported for the fiscal year. EPA's
Regional Administrator certifies the accuracy of the locked information.
Error Estimate: For the TPMS, errors could occur by mis-entering data or neglecting to
enter data. However, the data from each region will be certified as accurate at the end of
each reporting cycle; error is estimated to be low, about 1-2 percent.
New/Improved Data or Systems: TPMS was reprogrammed in 2010. It now calculates
and reports the three tribal measures for PAR, the SMM 5.3TR measure and the GAP
Efficiency measure on an ongoing basis. The data are reported per year.
References:
Tribal Program Management System: https://iaspub.epa.gov/TATS/
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines:
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision makers adopt ORD-developed decision support tools and
methodologies (program assessment measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision makers adopt ORD-identified and developed metrics to
quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability (program
assessment measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of STS's goal that
decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD
(program assessment measure).
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management Systems (internal database)
or other internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of
key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
-------
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs
being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates
of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Sustainability Research Stragegy, available at
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/pdfs/EPA-12057_SRS_R4-1 .pdf (last accessed
August 21,2008)
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (program assessment
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned
and actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent
of planned program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the
difference between planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically,
determining the difference between what the program actually spent and what it intended
to spent), and 3) dividing the difference between planned and actual performance by the
difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
-------
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and
estimated costs when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects
only the key program outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a
program. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated,
though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) publications
rated as highly cited publications (program assessment measure).
• Percentage of Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) publications
in "high impact" journals (program assessment measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are
conducted to obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are
completed using Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI provides access to a unique and comprehensive
compilation of essential science performance statistics and science trends data derived
from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI
employs both total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals
gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a
recognized authority for evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that
provide a systematic, objective way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their
impact and influence in the global research community. The two key measures used in
this analysis to assess the journals in which a program's papers are published are the
Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency
with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year. The
Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially when compared
to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other
key agency documents.
-------
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/index.html
-------
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of GS employees hired within 80 calendar days. (Goal is 60 percent)
Performance Database: EPA's Human Resources Activity and Communication Tracking
System (HRACTS) is an in-house, lotus-notes based system designed to track and monitor HR
workload including recruitment actions at the Agency's Shared Service Centers. HRACTS also
tracks other HR workload activity including awards, reassignment, etc.; tracks EPA's status
towards achieving OPM's original 45-day hiring goal; and provides status reports to customers.
The servicing human resources personnel at EPA's 3 Shared Service Center enter data into the
system. This data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year, quarterly, and as-needed
basis.
Data Source: Office of Human Resources (OHR) HRACTS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: OPM's 80-day hiring model is designed only to assess
the time to hire new non-federal hires through the delegated examining recruitment actions only,
therefore, not all Agency recruitment actions need to be reported as part of this performance
measure. HRACTS tracks the time throughout EPA's hiring process from the time a hiring
request is initiated until the employee comes on board. HRACTS has multiple date fields for
inputting the date for each step in the hiring process. HRACTS is continually undergoing
changes and modifications to meet the constant clarification and unique needs of the 80-day end-
to-end hiring model. HRACTS has been revised to track the date for each step in hiring process,
while meeting the diverse demands for easy access by Agency-wide managers to track the status
of hiring actions. The system is being refined to notify applicants of their status of their vacancy
application throughout the hiring process and also provide managers with a link to survey their
perspective of the overall hiring process. HRACTS reports are being revised to provide
organizations with in-depth information on the status of their pending recruitment actions in a
secure and controlled environment. HRACTS limitations have prevented clear delineation of the
various types of recruitment actions (e.g. merit promotion, delegated examining) as input fields
are just now being incorporated into the system and being populated. This distinction is
important as the 80-day end-to-end hiring process is designed to track only new non-federal hires
whereas current baseline estimates reflect all hiring actions. Other improvements include better
reporting templates to track trends and anomalies along the hiring process timeline.
QA/QC Procedures: HRACTS tracks hiring process activity from the time the request for a
recruitment action is requested until the selected candidate enters on-board for duty. Agency-
wide, Office-level, and SSC reports can be prepared on an annual, quarterly, or selected time
period basis. Manager access is being piloted to better enable tracking of the status of their
individual recruitment actions.
Data Quality Reviews: SSC / OHR staff review and analyze the reports to determine trends and
assess workload. SSC staff review and validate the data, identify anomalies or data-entry errors,
make corrections, and provide the updated information so that the system's reports can be
-------
current and accurate. Agency managers can be provided with system access to further enhance
data integrity. Questions about the data or resolution of data issues are frequently resolved
through discussion and consultation with the SSC and OHR.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: In FY08, EPA implemented HRACTS a new standardized
action tracking system across the 3 new HR Shared Service Centers. Changes and modifications
are ongoing to further meet the Agency's needs for improved tracking and reporting. This
tracking system will facilitate further improvement in EPA's end-to-end time-to-hire process.
References: HRACTS
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 34 reporting
facilities from the FY 2003 baseline
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy and
Water Database," which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The contractor is responsible
for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QCing) the data.
Data Source: The Agency's contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water
reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each of
EPA's "reporting" facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to the
utility company). The reported data are based on metered readings from the laboratory's utility
bills for certain utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam, chilled water, high temperature
hot water, and potable water) and from on-site consumption logs for other utilities (propane and
fuel oil). In instances when data are missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a
proxy or historical average.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and fuel
logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPA's Sustainable Facilities
Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at each reporting facility against
previous years' verified data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or
decreases in energy consumption and costs.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
-------
Data Limitations: EPA does not currently have a formal meter verification program to ensure
that an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.
However, as EPA implements the advance metering requirements of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which should be well underway
by FY 2010, calibration of advanced meters will be performed, at a minimum, on an annual
basis.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
• Number of states, tribes, and territories that will be able to exchange data with CDX
through nodes in real time, using standards and automated data-quality checking.
• Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to
report environmental data electronically to EPA.
Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.
Data Source: Data are provided by State, private sector, local, and Tribal government CDX
users.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can begin
reporting. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of users. Users
identify themselves with several descriptors and use a number of CDX security mechanisms for
ensuring the integrity of individuals' identities.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC has been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance
Plan ["Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004] and the CDX
Design Document v.3. Appendix K registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic
Reporting Prototype System Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3; December
2000]. Specifically, data are reviewed for authenticity and integrity. Automated edit checking
routines are performed in accordance with program specifications and the CDX Quality
Assurance Plan. This Plan is currently being updated to incorporate new technology and policy
requirements and a draft is scheduled to be released at the end of FY 2007 [contact: Sana
Hamady, 202-566-1674].
Data Quality Reviews: CDX completed its last independent security risk assessment in January
2005, and all vulnerabilities are being reviewed or addressed. In addition, routine audits of CDX
data collection procedures, statistics and customer service operations are provided weekly to
CDX management and staff for review. Included in these reports are performance measures
such as the number of CDX new users, number of submissions to CDX, number of help desk
-------
calls, number of calls resolved, ranking of errors/problems, and actions taken. These reports are
reviewed and actions discussed at weekly project meetings.
Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures on data
quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to screen systemic
problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems generally requires a
secondary level of analysis that takes time and human resources. In addition, environmental data
collected by CDX is delivered to National data systems in the Agency. Upon receipt, the
National systems often conduct a more thorough data quality assurance procedure based on more
intensive rules that can be continuously changing based on program requirements. As a result,
CDX and these National systems appropriately share the responsibility for ensuring
environmental data quality.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors in registration data
and that contribute greatly to the quality of environmental data entering the Agency. These
features include pre-populating data either from CDX or National systems, conducting web-form
edit checks, implementing XML schemas for basic edit checking and providing extended quality
assurance checks for selected Exchange Network Data flows using Schematron. The potential
error in registration data, under CDX responsibility has been assessed to be less than 1 %.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX assembles the registration/submission
requirements of many different data exchanges with EPA and the States, Tribes, local
governments and the regulated community into a centralized environment. This system improves
performance tracking of external customers and overall management by making those processes
more consistent and comprehensive. The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled
with the use of web forms and web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities
to introduce additional automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human
error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2011 Performance Measure:
• Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems
that are certified and accredited
Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
(ASSERT) database.
Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and Regional
offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are conducted using
the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National
Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and web-enabled this methodology.
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance with
ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are consistent. The
Office of Inspector General consistent with §3545 FISMA, and the Chief Information Officer's
information security staff conduct independent evaluations of the assessments. The Agency
certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report.
Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans composed
of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices self-report progress
toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data,
conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office.
Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staffs ability to validate all of the self-
reported compliance data submitted by program systems' managers.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: Annual Information Security Reports to OMB:
http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/: OMB guidance memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19.pdf; ASSERT web site
https://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/index.cfm; NIST Special Publication 800-53, Recommended
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. February 2005:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html; and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
FY 2011 Performance Measures:
• Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction;
• Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action;
• Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from audits
and investigations; and
• Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System (PMRS)
captures and aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking
immediate outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results. OIG performance
measures are designed to demonstrate value added by promoting economy, efficiency and
effectiveness; and preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse as described by the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (as amended). Because intermediate and long-term results may not be
realized over a period of several years, only verifiable results are reported in the year completed.
Database measures include numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management
improvement; 2) legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental,
-------
program management, security and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4)
best practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of environmental and management
actions taken and improvements made; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved, fined, or
recovered; 7) criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken, 8) public or congressional
inquiries resolved; and 9) certifications, allegations disproved, and cost corrections.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG performance
evaluations, audits, research, analysis, court records, EPA documents, data systems, and reports
that track environmental and management actions or improvements made and risks reduced or
avoided. OIG also collects independent data from EPA's contractors, partners and stakeholders.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of linked events,
starting with OIG outputs (e.g., recommendations, reports of best practices, and identification of
risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's
outputs, to improve operational efficiency and environmental program delivery are reported as
intermediate outcomes. The resulting improvements in operational efficiency, risks
reduced/eliminated, and conditions of environmental and human health are reported as outcomes.
By using common categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and
reported. Each outcome is also qualitatively described, supported, and linked to an OIG product
or output. The OIG can only control its outputs and has no authority, beyond its influence, to
implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management outcomes.
QA/QC Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database require at least one
verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and control are
performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous compliance with the
Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General1, and regularly reviewed by OIG
management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external
independent peer reviews. Each Assistant Inspector General certifies the completeness and
accuracy of performance data. OIG reports are referenced and independently quality reviewed.
Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external
groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG PMRS. All data reported are audited
internally for accuracy and consistency.
Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and
services. However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system
due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are often from indirect
or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data verification/validation.
Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +/-2%, while the error rate for
reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period needed for
tracking results and difficulty in verifying a nexus between our work and subsequent actions and
impacts beyond our control. Errors tend to be those of omission.
Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-731G, July 2007;
Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated MarchJune 2009.
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the PMRS as a prototype in FY 2001
and constantly revises the clarity and quality of the measures as well as system improvements for
ease of use. During FY 2008, the OIG implemented an Audit Follow-up Policy to independently
verify the status of Agency actions on OIG recommendations, which serve as the basis for OIG
intermediate outcome results reported in the OIG PMRS. During FY 2009 the PMRS was
converted to a relational database directly linked to the new Inspector General Enterprise
Management System (IGEMS). The quality of the data will continue to improve in FY
20102011 as staff will have to make fewer data entries due to the integrated nature of the system,
gain greater familiarity with the measures, and perform follow-up verification reviews to identify
and track actions and impacts. The OIG is also implementing full costing of OIG products to
measure relative return on investment from the application of OIG resources.
References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG PMRS with
supporting documentation available either through the OIG Web Site or other Agency databases.
The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig.2
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications;
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig , last updated February June 2009.
------- |