U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview i-1
EPA's Mission and Goals i-1
Annual Plan and Budget Overview i-2
Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Budget i-10
Resource Tables RT-1
Resources by Appropriation RT-1
Resources by Goal/Appropriation RT-3
Resources by Goal/Objective RT-8
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 1-1
Healthier Outdoor Air 1-11
Healthier Indoor Air 1-27
Protect the Ozone Layer 1-38
Radiation 1-41
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity 1-47
Enhance Science and Research 1-52
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water II-l
Protect Human Health 11-10
Protect Water Quality 11-27
Enhance Science and Research 11-41
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration III-l
Preserve Land III-l 1
Restore Land 111-17
Enhance Science and Research 111-29
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems IV-1
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks IV-16
Communities IV-31
Ecosystems IV-37
Enhance Science and Research IV-54
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship V-l
Improve Compliance V-14
Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation V-24
Build Tribal Capacity V-33
Enhance Science and Research V-37
Enabling/Support Programs ESP-1
Office of Air and Radiation ESP-1
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ESP-1
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ESP-1
Office of Administration and Resources Management ESP-1
Office of Environmental Information ESP-3
Office of the Chief Financial Officer ESP-10
Office of International Activities ESP-12
Office of the Administrator ESP-12
Office of the General Counsel ESP-12
Inspector General ESP-12
Annual Performance Goals and Measures 1
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 1
Clean and Safe Water 22
Land Preservation and Restoration 31
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 62
Special Analysis SA-1
Major Management Challenges SA-1
EPA User Fee Program SA-10
Working Capital Fund SA-12
STAG: Appropriation Account SA-13
STAG: Categorical Grants Program SA-14
STAG: Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses SA-19
STAG: Infrastructure Financing SA-29
Program Projects SA-32
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) SA-40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Introduction
EPA's Mission
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect and safeguard human health and
the environment, with a new focus on collaboration and partnerships with our Geographic and Regional partners.
This budget supports the Administration's commitment to environmental results - making the air cleaner, water
purer, and better protecting our land. The Agency's proposal for FY 2005 also reflects our primary goal of
compliance with national standards, which support neighborhood solutions. It will enable the Agency to take a giant
step toward national market-based solutions, boosting our nation to the next level of environmental protection.
EPA's Goals
EPA has five strategic, long-term goals in its
Strategic Plan that guide the Agency's planning,
budgeting, analysis, accountability, and
implementation processes.
• Clean Air and Global Climate Change: EPA
will protect and improve the air so it is healthy to
breathe and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. EPA will reduce
greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing
partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
EPA and its partners will protect human health
and the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air-quality standards
and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants,
and will encourage voluntary actions to improve
indoor air in homes, schools, and office
buildings. Through worldwide action, ozone
concentrations in the stratosphere will improve,
reducing the risk to human health from
overexposure to ultraviolet radiation. EPA and
its partners will also work to minimize
unnecessary releases of radiation and be
prepared to minimize impacts should unwanted
releases occur. In addition, EPA will provide
and apply sound science and conduct leading-
edge research in support of air programs.
• Clean and Safe Water: EPA will ensure
drinking water is safe. EPA will also 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.
EPA will protect human health by reducing
exposure to contaminants in drinking water, in
fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
EPA will also protect the quality of rivers, lakes,
and streams on a watershed basis, and protect
coastal and ocean waters. EPA's water program
will be supported by providing and applying a
sound scientific foundation through the conduct
of leading-edge research and development of a
better understanding and characterization of the
environmental outcomes.
• Land Preservation and Restoration: EPA will
preserve and restore the land by using innovative
waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.
EPA will reduce waste generation, increase
recycling, and ensure proper management of
waste and petroleum products at facilities in
ways that prevent releases. EPA will also work
to 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. EPA's land
preservation and restoration efforts will be
supported by the application of sound science
and the conduct of leading-edge research.
• Healthy Communities and Ecosystems: EPA
will protect, sustain, or restore the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems using
integrated and comprehensive approaches and
partnerships.
EPA will prevent and reduce potential pesticide,
chemical, and genetically-engineered biological
organism risks to humans, communities, and
ecosystems. EPA will work to protect, sustain,
and restore the health of communities, natural
habitats, and ecosystems, including brownfield
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
sites, the United States-Mexico border, wetlands,
and specific ecosystems such as the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf of Mexico. The
Agency will work to enhance the Nation's
capability to prevent, detect, and recover from
acts of terror through research, enhanced data
collection and sharing, and provision of technical
support to infrastructure. In addition, EPA will
provide a sound scientific foundation for
protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems through
leading-edge research.
• Compliance and Environmental Stewardship:
EPA will improve environmental performance
through compliance with environmental
requirements, preventing pollution, and
promoting environmental stewardship. EPA will
protect human health and the environment by
encouraging innovation and providing incentives
for governments, businesses, and the public that
promote environmental stewardship. Additional
funds and resources provided in 2004 and
continued into 2005 will allow resumption of
targeted inspections and enforcement activities in
both the civil and criminal context.
EPA will maximize compliance through
compliance assistance, compliance incentives,
and enforcement. EPA will also work to
improve environmental protection and enhance
natural resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public through the
adoption of pollution prevention and sustainable
practices, the reduction of regulatory barriers,
and the application of results-based, innovative,
and multimedia approaches. In addition, EPA
will assist Federally recognized tribes in
assessing the condition of their environment,
help build their capacity to implement
environmental programs, and carry out programs
in Indian country where needed to address
environmental issues. EPA will also strengthen
the scientific evidence and research supporting
environmental policies and decisions on
compliance, pollution prevention, and
environmental stewardship.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Overview
Annual Plan and Budget Overview
The EPA's FY 2005 Annual Plan and
Budget requests $7.8 billion in discretionary budget
authority and 17,904 Full Time Equivalents (FTE).
This budget request supports the Agency's core
programs and implementation of critical components
of the President's Management Agenda.
Additionally, this request emphasizes the importance
of adequate resources and vision necessary to reach
our Nation's environmental goals. Resources also
support the Agency's efforts to work with its partners
toward protecting air, water, and land, as well as
providing for EPA's role in safeguarding the Nation
from terrorist acts. The request supports the
Administration's commitment to setting high
environmental protection standards, while focusing
on results and performance, and achieving goals
outlined in the President's Management Agenda.
This Annual Plan and Budget submission
demonstrates EPA's commitment to protecting
human health and the environment, building and
enhancing relationships with our Geographic and
Regional partners, and improving environment
results. EPA's budget request places a strong
emphasis on working with stakeholders to protect
human health. For example, the Agency requests $65
million for grants to retrofit the Nation's school buses
with cleaner technologies, thereby reducing diesel
emissions. The budget will also assist our state and
local partners in meeting national environmental
quality standards. EPA requests $20 million and $45
million respectively to support the Agency's request
for Water Quality Monitoring and the Great Lakes
Legacy Act. These efforts exhibit EPA's
commitment to collaborative environmental
protection.
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
The FY 2005 President's Budget expands
EPA's Clean School Bus USA program to $65
million in grant funding for projects that reduce
diesel emissions from school buses through bus
retrofit or replacement. Clean School Bus USA helps
ensure that school buses - which are the safest way
for kids to get to school - also are the cleanest
possible transportation for this generation of school
children. EPA initially launched the program in
April 2003 using $5 million in grant funding. The
initial grant offering garnered 120 grant applications
from every region of the country totaling nearly $60
million in requests and offering some $36 million in
matching resources. EPA supported 17 of these
projects with the given resources. By expanding this
program, additional resources are available to
communities for localized solutions that address an
issue important to children and parents across the
nation.
The Clear Skies initiative draws on EPA's
experience to modernize the Clean Air Act. Using a
market-based approach, the Clear Skies initiative will
dramatically reduce power plant emissions of three of
the most significant air pollutants—sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury.
Reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions will also
reduce airborne fine paniculate matter (PM2 5), which
is associated with these two pollutants. EPA's
approach builds upon the success of the acid rain cap-
and-trade program created by the Clean Air Act
amendments in 1990. The Clear Skies initiative will
achieve substantially greater reductions in air
pollution from power plants more quickly and with
more certainty than the existing Clean Air Act. The
initiative requires mandatory reductions of SO2, NOX,
and mercury (Hg) by an average of 70% from today's
levels and ensures that these levels are achieved and
sustained through caps on emissions. EPA has also
proposed an Interstate Air Quality Rule that also
utilizes a cap and trade program to reduce SO2 and
NOX as well as a proposed Utility Mercury
Reductions Rule that seeks comments on two
approaches for reducing the estimated 48 tons of
mercury currently emitted each year by coal-burning
power plants in the United States Despite these
reductions, some states will need to implement
further measures to meet National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). To help states and
localities develop cost-effective strategies, EPA also
will need to provide assistance to states to implement
reductions. One approach is to strengthen air models
by developing emission factors and improving
emission inventories.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
The number of people living in areas with
monitored ambient ozone concentrations below
the NAAQS for the one-hour ozone standard will
increase by 4% for a cumulative total of 53%.
A key to achieving the Clean Air Goal is
$313.0 million included in this budget for air grants
that support states and tribes. This total includes
resources to assist states, tribes and local
governments in devising additional stationary and
mobile source strategies to reduce ozone, paniculate
matter, and other pollutants.
The Agency will develop strategies and
rules to help states and tribes reduce emissions and
exposure to hazardous air pollutants, particularly in
urban areas, and reduce harmful deposition in water
bodies.
EPA's air research program will continue to
provide a strong scientific basis for policy and
regulatory decisions and explore emerging problem
areas.
By 2005 the percentage of the population served by
community water systems will receive drinking water
that meets health-based standards with which systems
need to comply as of December 2001 will be 94%.
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and
mobile sources combined will be reduced by an
additional 1% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0
million tons for a cumulative reduction of 38%.
Climate Change
This budget request includes $130.1 million
to meet the Agency's climate change objectives by
working with business and other sectors to deliver
multiple benefits - from cleaner air to lower energy
bills - while improving overall scientific
understanding of climate change and its potential
consequences. The core of EPA's climate change
efforts are government/industry partnership programs
designed to capitalize on the tremendous
opportunities available to consumers, businesses, and
Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from
projected levels by approximately 90 MMTCE
per year through EPA partnerships with
businesses, schools, state and local governments,
and other organizations.
organizations to make sound investments in efficient
equipment and practices. These programs help
remove barriers in the marketplace, resulting in faster
deployment of technology into the residential,
commercial, transportation, and industrial sectors of
the economy.
Clean and Safe Water
Over the 30 years since enactment of the
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts,
government, citizens, and the private sector have
worked together to make dramatic progress in
improving the quality of surface waters and drinking
water.
By 2005, using both pollution prevention and
restoration approaches, so that 500 of the Nation's
watersheds, water quality standards are met in at
least 80% of the assessed water segments.
Thirty years ago, much of the nation's tap
water had either very limited treatment or no
treatment at all. About two-thirds of the surface
waters assessed by states were not attaining basic
water quality goals and were considered polluted.
Some of the Nation's waters were open sewers
posing health risks, and many waterbodies were so
polluted that traditional uses, such as swimming,
fishing, and recreation were impossible.
Today drinking water systems monitor and treat
water to assure compliance with drinking water
standards applicable to a wider range of
contaminants. In addition, drinking water sources are
now protected, which reduces treatment costs in the
long run. The number of polluted waters has been
dramatically reduced and many clean waters are even
healthier. A massive investment of Federal, state,
and local funds resulted in a new generation of
wastewater treatment facilities able to provide
"secondary" treatment or better. Discharges from
over 50 different categories of industries are now
regulated and efforts to implement 'best management
practices' have helped reduce runoff of pollutants
from diffuse or 'nonpoint' sources.
In FY 2005, EPA will focus on four
strategies toward achieving the Nation's clean and
safe water goals. To better address the complexity of
the remaining water quality challenges, EPA will
promote local watershed approaches to execute the
best and most cost effective solutions to local and
regional water problems. To protect and build on the
gains of the past, EPA will focus on its core water
programs. To maximize the impact of each dollar,
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EPA will continue to strengthen vital partnerships
with states, tribes and local governments, and others
working toward the common goal of improving the
Nation's waters. To leverage progress through
innovation, EPA will promote water quality trading,
water efficiency, and other market based approaches.
In FY 2005, to further support states and
tribes in implementing CWA programs, EPA is
making a significant investment in water quality
monitoring to strengthen and upgrade state programs
through state grants, improved data management
systems and improved monitoring tools.
EPA's water research program will continue
to provide a strong scientific basis for policy and
regulatory decisions and explore emerging problem
areas.
Water Quality Monitoring
The FY 2005 water quality monitoring
investment will be a major step toward solving the
well-documented shortcomings of the Nation's water
quality monitoring. EPA can make the most of
scarce resources through information-based
management, using tools such as prevention, source
water protection, watershed trading, and permitting
on watershed basis. Monitoring is the foundation of
information-based management and it is imperative
that the data and information gaps be closed as
quickly as possible. To strengthen and upgrade water
quality monitoring programs across the country, EPA
proposes two components: State grants targeted
specifically to enhance state monitoring programs as
well as support and enhancement of state data
management systems.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
and Storm Water
States are struggling with implementation of
the NPDES permitting programs, as shown by
withdrawal petitions and permit backlogs.
Compounding the problem is that the regulated
universe has increased by tenfold due to new
requirements for concentrated animal feeding
operations and storm water runoff. Additional
resources in the form of state grants will assist states
in implementing the NPDES CAFO programs and
issuing storm water permits.
Water Quality Trading
In FY 2005 EPA will advance water quality
trading in voluntary partnerships on a watershed
basis. It capitalizes on economies of scale and cost
differences among sources. Trading allows one
source to meet its regulatory obligations by using
pollutant reductions gained by another source and
provides incentives for voluntary reductions at a
reduced cost to all. It encourages earlier and/or
greater reductions than required, more cost effective
programs, and incentives for innovative solutions to
complex water quality problems.
Water Efficiency
Growing populations place increasing
demands on water sources. In addition, the nation
faces a multi-billion dollar gap between water and
wastewater infrastructure needs over the next 20
years. The touchstone of a long-term strategy to
manage and maintain water and wastewater
infrastructure is sustainability. An important
component of that strategy is promoting sustainable
systems. EPA will work in partnership with the
states, utility industry and others to enhance the
operating efficiencies of systems. These efficiencies
will help systems make necessary investments to
meet growing demand and sustain gains made over
the past three decades. EPA will also help mitigate
the infrastructure needs by investing in efforts to
reduce water demand and wastewater flows, allowing
for deferral or downsizing of capital projects. Added
benefits to reduced demand include: maintaining
streamflows, protecting aquatic habitat, avoiding
overdrawn aquifers, and conserving supply sources.
Land Preservation and Restoration
This budget continues a commitment to
clean up toxic waste sites with $1.4 billion for
Superfund. The Agency will also work to maximize
the participation of responsible parties in site
cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement
process. EPA will continue the progress we have
made in cleaning up toxic waste sites while
protecting public health and returning land to
productive use. As of January 6, 2004,
approximately 700 cleanup construction projects
were underway at over 430 Superfund National
Priority List (NPL) sites construction was complete
on over 890 sites, or 59% of NPL sites. EPA has
completed all final cleanup plans at over 1,100 NPL
sites, undertaken 7,900 removals at hazardous waste
sites to immediately reduce human health and
environmental threats, assessed over 45,300 sites, and
removed more than 33,400 sites from the national
toxic waste site list to help promote the economic
redevelopment of these properties. The waste
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
research program continues to support the Agency's
objective of reducing or controlling potential risks to
human health and the environment at contaminated
waste sites by accelerating scientifically-defensible
and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex
sites, mining sites, marine spills, and Brownfields in
accordance with CERCLA.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Ensuring Safe Food
The FY 2005 request includes $156.7
million to meet implementation challenges of the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 so that
all Americans will continue to enjoy one of the safest
and most affordable food supplies in the world. The
Agency's implementation of FQPA focuses on
science-driven policies for pesticides review, seeks to
encourage the development of reduced risk pesticides
to provide an alternative to the older versions on the
market, and works to develop and deliver information
on alternative pesticides/techniques and best pest
control practices to pesticide users. The Agency is
also working to help farmers' transition-without
disrupting production~to safer substitutes and
alternative farming practices. Reassessing existing
tolerances ensures food safety, especially for infants
and children, and ensures that all pesticides registered
for use meet current health standards. This budget
request also supports FQPA research. That research
seeks to reduce uncertainties in risk assessment by
developing tools to reduce reliance on default
assumptions and support the development of new
assessment methodologies.
By the end of 2005, EPA will reassess a
cumulative 88% of the 9,721 pesticide tolerances
required to be reassessed over ten years.
Chemical Programs
EPA's strategy to prevent and reduce
potential risks posed by chemicals and
microorganisms comprises three primary approaches:
preventing the introduction into U.S. commerce of
chemicals that pose unreasonable risks; effectively
screening the stock of chemicals already in use for
potential risk; and developing and implementing
action plans to reduce use of and exposure to
chemicals that have been demonstrated to harm
humans and the environment. EPA will continue to
work with states and Tribes, other federal agencies,
the private sector, and international entities to
implement this strategy and, in particular, to make
protection of children and the aging a fundamental
goal of public health and environmental protection in
the United States and around the world. Both the
New Chemicals and Existing Chemicals programs
have initiated work to develop long-term, ambitious
targets not only in response to the FY 2004 PART
process but also in conjunction with the EPA
Strategic Plan revision effort. Both have made
significant improvements since the FY 2004 review,
with new chemicals program receiving one of the
highest ratings of EPA programs reviewed by the
PART for FY 2005. Both programs are continuing
its efforts to improve performance measurement in
response to FY 2005 PART findings by developing
long-term and associated annual efficiency measures.
Great Lakes
To advance the Agency's efforts regarding
innovative and effective partnerships, EPA is making
a significant investment in the Great Lakes Legacy
Act program to address cleanup of contaminated
sediments. EPA and its Great Lakes community
partners will collaborate on remedial action within
the Areas of Concern identified as potential Legacy
Act sediment remediation sites in 2005.
Chesapeake Bay
The FY 2005 President's Budget includes
$30 million for the Chesapeake Bay. Of that total,
$10 million in the Targeted Watershed program is
directed toward Chesapeake Bay for a regional pilot
program that will help sewage treatment plants
reduce nutrient discharges to the Bay through
nonpoint source projects. Partners in the effort to
protect the Bay include Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative
body; EPA, which represents the Federal
government; and participating citizen advisory
groups.
Brownfields
Additionally, the Agency is committed to
building innovative and effective partnerships that
allow states and tribes to make environmental
decisions on local levels. This budget provides $210
million for Brownfields. As one of the
Administration's top environmental priorities and a
key to restoring contaminated sites to productive use,
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
the Brownfields program will draw on some of these
resources to enhance state and Tribal response
programs. By protecting land and revitalizing
contaminated sites throughout the US, EPA continues
to expand efforts to foster healthy and economically
sustainable communities and attract new investments
to rejuvenate areas.
Homeland Security
EPA's FY 2005 Annual Plan and Budget
requests $97 million and 151 FTE to support the
Agency's Homeland Security responsibilities in
accordance with the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002, the National Strategy for Homeland Security,
and Presidential Directives (FDD) 39, 62, 63. In
addition, EPA will conduct research and provide
guidance and technical support for Federal, state,
local governments, and other institutions in the areas
of biological agents, water security, and rapid risk
A strong enforcement program identifies and
reduces noncompliance problems, assists the
regulated community in understanding
environmental laws and regulations, responds to
complaints from the public, strives to secure a level
economic playing field for law-abiding companies,
and deters future violations.
assessment.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Many of the environmental improvements in
this country during the past 30 years can be attributed
to a strong set of environmental laws and EPA's
efforts to ensure compliance with those laws through
a smart enforcement program. A smart enforcement
program uses a mix of integrated strategies,
partnerships, and innovative approaches to provide
cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land.
An integrated approach considers the appropriate
tools to use when addressing environmental
problems, and uses data analysis and other relevant
information to marshal and leverage resources to
target significant noncompliance and address the
associated environmental risks. The program uses a
combination of tools such as compliance assistance
and incentives, monitoring, and civil and criminal
enforcement, in cooperating with our regulatory
partner, to provide a broad scope of actions designed
to protect public health and the environment. State,
Tribal, and local governments bear
much of the responsibility for ensuring compliance.
EPA works in partnership with them and other
Federal agencies to promote environmental
protection.
The FY 2005 request will continue to
support the regulated community's compliance with
environmental requirements through voluntary
compliance incentives and assistance programs. The
Agency will provide information and technical
assistance to the regulated community through the
compliance assistance program to increase its
understanding of all statutory or regulatory
environmental requirements, thereby reducing risk to
human health and the environment and gaining
measurable improvements in compliance. The
program will also continue to develop strategies and
compliance assistance tools that will support
Increase the regulated community's compliance
with environmental requirements through their
expanded use of compliance assistance. The
Agency will continue to support small business
compliance assistance centers and develop
compliance assistance tools such as sector
notebooks and compliance guides.
initiatives targeted toward improving compliance at
Federal facilities, in specific industrial and
commercial sectors, or with certain regulatory
requirements.
The President's FY 2005 request continues
to support pollution prevention. Increasingly, the
nation is recognizing the value of pollution
prevention as an environmental strategy, as a
sustainable business practice, and as a funding
principle of our society. It is also a vehicle for
"reinventing" traditional EPA programs and devising
innovative alternative strategies to protect public
health and the environment. Through EPA's
leadership, pollution prevention has become a key
element of initiatives to improve federal
environmental management, empower state and tribal
programs, encourage corporate stewardship, and
better inform the public.
Enhancing Environmental Performance
To further EPA's goal of promoting
environmental stewardship, the Agency will make
investments in programs to support State innovation
and pollution prevention in FY 2005. A new State
and Tribal Performance Fund provides $23 million in
competitive grants to develop projects with tangible,
performance-based environmental and health
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
outcomes that can be models for implementation
across the nation. EPA will also continue its
emphasis on working with Tribal governments to
build the capacity of their environmental programs.
Strong Science
The FY 2005 budget supports EPA's efforts
to further strengthen the role of science in decision-
making by using sound scientific information and
analysis to help direct policy and establish priorities.
This budget request includes $572 million for the
Office of Research and Development to develop and
apply strong science to address both current and
future environmental challenges. These resources
support a balanced research and development
program designed to address Administration and
Agency priorities, and meet the challenges of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), and other environmental
statutes. The budget request includes important new
or increased research efforts in the following areas:
computational toxicology, data quality, and IRIS.
In accordance with the Administration's
Investment Criteria for Research and Development
(relevance, quality, and performance), the Agency
will continue to improve the application of the
Criteria to achieve maximum environmental and
health protections. Efforts include applying the
highest quality scientific methods, models, tools, and
approaches.
Relevance
EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) has developed Multi-Year Plans (MYPs) for
each of its major research programs. These MYPs
describe the scientific context and present clear goals
and priorities for each research program. Reflecting
the inherently long-term nature of research, each
MYP has identified annual and long-term (five to
eight years out) goals that contribute to achievement
of the Agency's strategic outcome goals and
objectives. Each MYP is regularly updated to reflect
scientific and budgetary changes, and is
independently peer-reviewed.
The Agency is also exploring options for
establishing periodic evaluations of EPA research
programs. Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations
by independent and external panels will provide
prospective and retrospective reviews of program
relevance, quality, and performance to date.
Specifically, evaluators will determine whether EPA
research programs have complete plans with clear
goals and priorities, articulate potential public
benefits, are relevant to National, scientific, and
customer needs, and identify appropriate output and
outcome measures, schedules, and decision points.
Evaluations will also include an examination of
program design to determine the appropriateness of a
program's short-, intermediate-, and long-term goals
and its strategy for attaining these.
Recommendations and results from these reviews
will improve the design and management of EPA
research programs and help to measure progress
under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). EPA Program Offices and Regions actively
participate in setting goals and priorities for Agency
research. This input is used on an annual basis to
inform and identify the performance impacts of
budgetary decisions.
Quality
The Agency will continue to rely upon peer
review as a critical means of ensuring that Agency
science activities are technically adequate,
competently performed, properly documented, and
satisfy established quality requirements. To ensure
quality, all scientific and technical work products
undergo either internal or external peer review, with
major or significant products requiring external peer
review.
EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program is a competitive, peer-reviewed, extramural
grants program whose goal is to enhance EPA's
research efforts by engaging the nation's best
scientists to provide high-quality, innovative research
and solutions to protect human health and the
environment. The STAR program uses external
scientific peer reviewers to rate applications based on
scientific merit.
Performance
In response to recommendations from the
National Research Council, EPA's Science Advisory
Board, and OMB, ORD is continually working to
improve the performance of its research programs.
Because of the inherent challenge in measuring
research results, EPA is taking a multi-faceted
approach in tracking and communicating the
performance of its research programs.
Specifically, EPA has developed multi-year
plans for each of its research programs using a
program design/evaluation logic model to help
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
identify the outputs, customers, transfer needs, and
short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of each
research program. ORD has incorporated these
critical elements its long-term and annual
performance goals to illustrate how research
contributes to the achievement of Agency outcomes.
The Agency has included specific long-term goals
and annual performance goals which represent
significant research accomplishments in the
individual goal chapters of the budget request. EPA
will also determine success in achieving each
program's research commitments not only by its
timeliness in meeting annual performance goals, but
will also hold external independent reviews on a
regular basis to evaluate the relevance, quality, and
performance of its research programs.
EPA believes that taking a multi-year
approach to its research planning, incorporating the
elements of logic model design in the development of
outcome-oriented performance information, and
initiating external independent reviews of its research
programs are important improvements in support of
achieving significant research results and
contributing to the achievement of Agency
environmental and health outcomes.
The President's Management Agenda: A
Commitment to Reform and Results
The Agency is committed to achieving the
Administration's management reform priorities for a
government that is results-oriented, citizen-centered,
and market-based. This Annual Plan and Budget
represents a strong commitment to reduce regulatory
burdens and streamline Agency operations, so that
the Agency's focus is on positive and measurable
environmental results while working more effectively
with our partners and stakeholders. Since FY 1999,
EPA has undertaken significant management reform
by restructuring its budget to match the strategic
goals and objectives of its strategic plan. Since then,
EPA has worked consistently to improve its ability to
manage for results. The Agency's current
management reform agenda fully supports the goals
of the President's Management Agenda, and EPA has
made demonstrable progress in carrying out the five
government-wide initiatives as reflected in Executive
Branch Scorecard updates and in delivering
environmental results to our ultimate customer~the
American public.
Implementation of the President's
Management Agenda is a major focus of the
Agency's FY 2005 budget request. EPA has
identified major efforts to accelerate its progress in
"getting to green" in all five initiatives: Budget and
Performance Integration, Improved Financial
Performance, Expanding E-Government, Competitive
Sourcing, and Strategic Management of Human
Capital. The Agency's plans are described
throughout this justification. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) rated EPA's
progress as "green" in all five of the five areas and its
status as "green" in Improved Financial Performance.
EPA continues to place a great emphasis on
improving performance measures. The results of the
Administration's Performance Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) were used to inform the Agency's FY
2005 budget request. For example, EPA is investing
in water quality monitoring to ensure adequate
information is available to link programmatic outputs
to environmental outcomes, and the Agency is better
targeting pollution prevention (P2) efforts by
enhancing P2 programs that have shown outcome
results. In addition to and complementing the
Agency's outcome-based environmental performance
measures, some programs have developed or are in
the process of developing efficiency measures.
These measures are structured as a ratio of key
program inputs (e.g. time, dollars, FTE) to program
outputs or outcomes. They are intended to provide
EPA program managers with additional information
to be used as a tool for sound decision-making in
program management.
The Agency has also incorporated
Measurement Development Plans (MDPs) into this
year's Annual Plan and Budget. MDPs, which
recognize that environmental performance does not
necessarily improve in one year, describe efforts to
fill identified measurement gaps so that progress
toward developing fully functioning measures,
whether long-term or short-term, can be tracked.
MDPs provide a road map for developing improved
long-term and short-term performance measures for
inclusion in the next strategic plan, tracking current
strategic targets that cannot be measured annually,
and assessing progress in addressing performance
measurement gaps.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
GOAL 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
STRATEGIC GOAL: 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. /
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Based on air quality trends measured at
more than 5000 monitoring sites across the U.S., air
quality has improved steadily since the 1970s. This
improvement has occurred even as Gross Domestic
Product has increased by 164 percent, miles traveled
by cars and trucks have increased 155 percent, energy
consumption has increased by 42 percent; and
population has increased by 38 percent.1
Concerted efforts and steady progress have
achieved cleaner, healthier air, but air pollution
continues to be a human health and environmental
problem in the U.S. and around the world. The
average adult breathes over 3,400 gallons of air every
day. Children are more susceptible to air pollution
because they breathe even more air per pound of
body weight than adults. Children also are at greater
risk because they are more active outdoors and their
lungs are still developing. The elderly are more
sensitive to air pollution because they often have
heart or lung disease.2
Pollutants in the air cause cancer or other
serious health effects, including respiratory,
developmental, and reproductive problems. Certain
pollutants, such as some metals and certain organic
chemicals, that are emitted from industrial and other
sources can be deposited into water bodies and
magnified through the food web, adversely affecting
fish-eating humans and animals. Air pollution also
damages crops and forests, makes soil and waterways
more acidic, reduces visibility, and accelerates
corrosion of buildings and monuments.3
In addition, air pollutants diminish the
protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.
Human activities also affect the mixture of gases in
the atmosphere and contribute to the potential for
world climate change.
1 U.S. EPA, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002
Status and Trends Report, 454/K-03-001 (August 2003),
http: //www.epa. go v/airtrends/.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
Outdoor Air Pollution: The Clean Air
Act4 addresses three general categories of outdoor air
pollution: "criteria" pollutants, air toxics, and acid
rain. Criteria pollutants include six common
pollutants: paniculate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon
monoxide (CO), and lead, for which EPA sets
National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect
public health and the environment. Air toxics, also
called hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are pollutants
that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other
serious health problems, such as reproductive effects
or birth defects, or adverse ecological effects. The
Clean Air Act lists 188 HAPs. Examples include:
dioxin, mercury, benzene, toluene, and xylene. Acid
rain is formed when SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and
oxidants to form acid droplets.
The paragraphs below summarize the health
and environmental effects associated with the six
criteria pollutants, air toxics, and acid rain.5
• Particulate matter. PM is
associated with a wide variety of health and
environmental problems. When exposed to
higher concentration of fine PM, people
with existing lung or heart diseases - such as
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, congestive heart disease, or
coronary artery disease - are at increased
risk of health problems requiring
hospitalization or of premature death.
Similarly, children and people with existing
lung disease may not be able to breathe as
deeply or vigorously as they normally would
and they may experience symptoms such as
coughing and shortness of breath. Fine PM
can increase susceptibility to respiratory
infections and can aggravate existing
4 Clean Air Act Title 1, Part A and Part D, Subparts 3 and 5
(42 U.S.C. 7401-7431, 7512-7512a, 7514-7541a)(15
U.S.C. 2605); Clean Air Act Amendments Title II (42
U.S.C. 7521-7590); Clean Air Act Amendments, Title IV
(42 U.S.C. 7651-7661); Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q)
5 Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and
Trends Report
1-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
respiratory diseases, such as asthma and
chronic bronchitis, causing more use of
medication and more doctor visits.
PM also is a major cause of haze and
reduced visibility in parts of the U.S.,
including many of our national parks.
Particles can be carried over long distances
by wind and then settle on ground or water.
The effects of certain PM settling may
include acidifying lakes and streams,
changing the nutrient balance in coastal
waters and watersheds, depleting the
nutrients in soil, damaging sensitive forests
and farm crops, and decreasing the diversity
of ecosystems.
• Ground-level ozone (smog). When
breathed at any concentration, ozone can
irritate and inflame a person's airways.
Health effects attributed to exposures to
ozone, generally while individuals are
engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
include significant decreases in lung
function and increased respiratory symptoms
such as chest pain and cough as
concentrations rise. Exposures to ozone
result in lung inflammation, aggravate
respiratory diseases such as asthma, and
may make people more susceptible to
respiratory effects. Other at-risk groups
include adults who are active outdoors and
individuals with respiratory disorders such
as asthma.
Ground-level ozone interferes with the
ability of many plants to produce and store
food. This reduces crop and forest yields by
making plants more susceptible to disease,
insects, other pollutants, and harsh weather.
Ozone also damages the leaves of trees and
other plants, affecting the appearance of
cities, national parks, and recreation areas.
• Sulfur dioxide. Peak levels of SO2
can cause temporary breathing difficulty for
people with asthma who are active outdoors.
Longer-term exposure to a combination of
SO2 and fine particles can cause respiratory
illness, alter the defense mechanisms of
lungs, and aggravate cardiopulmonary
disease. People who may be most
susceptible to these effects include
individuals with cardiovascular disease or
chronic lung disease, as well as children and
the elderly. SO2 also is a major contributor
to acidic deposition.
• Nitrogen dioxide. Exposure to NO2
causes respiratory symptoms such as
coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath
in children and adults with respiratory
diseases such as asthma. Even short
exposures to NO2 affect lung function. NO2
also contributes to acidic deposition,
eutrophication in coastal waters, and
visibility problems.
• Carbon monoxide. The health
threat from even low levels of CO is most
serious for those who suffer from heart
disease, like angina, clogged arteries, or
congestive heart disease. For a person with
heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low
levels may cause chest pain and reduce that
person's ability to exercise. Even healthy
people can be affected by high levels of CO.
People who breathe higher levels of CO can
develop vision problems, experience
reduced ability to work or learn, have
reduced manual dexterity, and have
difficulty performing complex tasks. CO is
most dangerous in enclosed or confined
spaces and will cause death.
• Lead. Lead causes damage to the
kidneys, liver, brain and nerves, and to other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead causes
seizures, mental retardation, behavioral
disorders, memory problems, and mood
changes. Low levels of lead damage the
brain and nerves in fetuses and young
children, resulting in learning deficits and
lowered IQ.
• Air toxics: Air toxics or HAPs, are
pollutants that are known or suspected to
cause cancer or other serious health
problems, such as reproductive effects or
birth defects, or adverse environmental
effects. HAPs are emitted from thousands
of sources, including automobiles, utilities,
and industries. HAPs also can contribute to
the levels of PM and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), precursors to ozone.
Adverse effects to human health and the
environment due to HAPs can result from
even low level exposures to air toxics from
individual facilities, exposures to mixtures
of pollutants found in urban settings, or
exposures to pollutants emitted from distant
sources that are transported through the
atmosphere over regional, national, or even
global airsheds.
1-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Compared to information for the six criteria
pollutants, the information about the
ambient concentrations of HAPs and their
potential health effects is relatively
incomplete. Most of the information on the
potential health effects of these pollutants is
derived from experimental data. Of the 188
HAPs, almost 60 percent are classified by
the Clean Air Act (section 112 (f)(2)(A)) as
known, probable, or possible carcinogens.
One of the often-documented ecological
concerns associated with toxic air pollutants
is the potential to damage aquatic
ecosystems.
• Acid rain. Emissions of SO2 and
NOX react in the atmosphere and fall to earth
as acid rain, causing acidification of lakes
and streams and contributing to the damage
of trees at high elevations. Acid deposition
also accelerates the decay of building
materials and paints and contributes to
degradation of irreplaceable cultural objects,
such as statues and sculptures. NOX
deposition contributes to eutrophication of
coastal waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay
and Tampa Bay. Before falling to earth,
SO2 and NOX gases form fine particles (fine
PM) that affect public health by contributing
to premature mortality, chronic bronchitis,
and other respiratory problems.
Indoor Air Pollution:
many pollutants may be two
occasionally more than 100
outdoor levels. There is
Indoor air levels of
to five times, and
times, higher than
no comprehensive
monitoring of the quality of indoor air in the U.S. and
the actual levels for many pollutants are not well
understood. Indoor air pollutants are of particular
concern because most people spend as much as 90%
of their time indoors. Common sources can include
burning kerosene, wood, or oil; smoking tobacco
products; releases from household cleaners,
pesticides, building materials; and radon. Inadequate
ventilation can increase indoor pollutant levels by not
bringing in enough outdoor air to dilute emissions
from indoor sources and by not carrying indoor air
pollutants out of the home. High temperatures and
humidity levels can also increase concentrations of
some pollutants.
Poor indoor air quality can cause short-term
problems, including headaches, fatigue, dizziness,
nausea, and a scratchy throat. Other effects include
cancer - particularly from long-term exposure to high
secondhand smoke and radon concentrations - and
aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases such as
asthma. Exposure to naturally occurring radon gas is
the second leading cause (after smoking tobacco) of
lung cancer among Americans.6
Climate Change: The buildup of
greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide—has heat-trapping
properties that may impact climate on Earth. These
potential regional climate changes could alter forests,
crop yields, and water supplies. These changes could
also threaten human health, and harm birds, fish, and
many types of ecosystems.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: A
protective ozone layer is located in the stratosphere
about six to 30 miles above the Earth's surface. This
layer protects humans and other species from the
sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation (UV). This
protective shield is being damaged by chemicals such
as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and methyl
bromide, and can lead to harmful health effects such
as skin cancer and cataracts.7 Increased UV also can
lead to reduced crop yield and disruptions in the
marine food chain.
Ozone depletion and climate change are
separate environmental issues but are related in some
ways. Specifically, some substances that deplete the
ozone layer also are potent and very long-lived
greenhouse gases that absorb outgoing radiation and
warm the atmosphere.
Radiation: Radiation occurs naturally (e.g.,
radon), but we also use radioactive materials in
electricity generation, in industrial processes, and in
medical diagnoses and treatments. Any activity that
produces or uses radioactive materials generates
radioactive waste. Mining, nuclear power generation,
and various processes in industry, defense, medicine,
and scientific research produce byproducts that
include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be
in gas, liquid, or solid form, and the level of
radioactivity can vary. The waste can remain
radioactive for a few hours or several months or even
hundreds of thousands of years. Frequent exposures
6 Institute of Medicine, Clearing the Air: Asthma and
Indoor Air Exposures (Washington, DC: The National
Academy Press, 200). Available at
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309064961/html/Rl.htrnl.
June 1999, "Synthesis Report of the Reports of the
Scientific, Environmental Effects, Technology and
Economic Assessment Panels of the Montreal Protocol: A
Decade of Assessments for Decision Makers Regarding the
Protection of the Ozone Layer: 1988 - 1999"; January
2003, Report of the Montreal Protocol Science Assessment
Panel, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002";
March 2003, Report of the Montreal Protocol
Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, "Environmental
Effects of Ozone Depletion: 2002".
1-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
to radiation can cause cancer and other adverse health
effects.
Science and Research: EPA relies on
sound science in its clean air programs. EPA uses
sound science to determine the relative risks that air
pollution poses to human health and the environment.
In addition, the Agency utilizes science in an attempt
to identify the best means to detect, abate and avoid
environmental problems associated with air
pollutants.
MEANS AND STRATEGY
The air problems that now remain are some
of the most difficult to solve. EPA's strategy to
address the overall goals of the clean air program
includes a combination of national and local
measures that reflect the different roles of Federal,
state, Tribal, and local governments. EPA, states,
and local agencies work together as partners to meet
clean air goals cost-effectively by employing an array
of regulatory, market-based, and voluntary
approaches and programs. Federal assistance and
leadership are essential for developing and
implementing cooperative programs to prevent and
control air pollution; for ensuring that national
standards are met; and for providing tools for states,
Tribes, and local communities to use in preparing and
implementing their clean air plans and programs.
Healthier Outdoor Air: Problems with
broad regional, national or global impact - emissions
from power plants and other large sources, pollution
from motor vehicles and fuels, and stratospheric
ozone depletion - are best handled primarily at the
multi-state, regional, or Federal level. A national
approach allows for the use of traditional, regulatory
tools where appropriate, and enables EPA to
implement innovative, market-based techniques such
as emissions trading, banking, and averaging, and
other national programs cost-effectively.
States, Tribes, and local agencies can best
address the regional and local problems that remain
after Federal measures have been fully applied.
Many of these approaches employ innovative
techniques, such as diesel retrofits and community-
based approaches to toxics that are well-suited to the
local nature of many air-related problems. EPA
works closely with public- and private-sector partners
and stakeholders to develop the tools - such as
monitoring, modeling, and emission inventories -
that allow states, Tribes, and localities to address
these more localized problems.
EPA will also work to build the institutional
capacity within developing countries and regionally
manage air pollution, focusing on those countries that
have demonstrated potential and commitment to
affect human health and the environment globally.
Programs include those that address clean fuels,
reduction of mercury and lead emissions, training on
various air quality issues, and partnering with
existing clean air initiatives.
To improve air quality and address the
highest health and environmental risks, EPA will
proceed with Federal stationary and mobile source
programs aimed at achieving large, nationwide, cost-
effective reductions in emissions of PM and its
contributors such as SO2, NOX, and elemental and
organic carbon; ozone-forming NOX; and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
The President's Clear Skies Initiative is a
cornerstone of the EPA strategy. The proposed
legislation, re-introduced in the Congress in February
2003, would create a mandatory program that is
designed to reduce dramatically power plant
emissions of SO2, NOX, and mercury, three of the
most harmful air pollutants from power generators,
from FY 2000 levels.8 (Alternatively, the Interstate
Air Quality and Utility Mercury Reduction Rules are
integrated air rules proposed by EPA in December
2003 to achieve many of Clear Skies' objectives
absent new legislation.).9 Both Clear Skies and the
proposed integrated air rules would create a market-
based program, with results guaranteed by emissions
caps instituted over a period of time, an approach that
proved successful in reducing acid rain. As the Clear
Skies Initiative moves forward, through enactment of
new legislation or promulgation of the proposed
Interstate Air Quality and Utility Mercury Reduction
Rules, EPA will continue to implement the Acid Rain
Program to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions from
electric power generators and address the interstate
transport of ozone and NOX through the NOX Budget
Program, a multi-state emissions allowance trading
program under the NOX SIP Call. In addition, EPA is
implementing national programs that will
dramatically reduce future emissions from a wide
range of mobile sources, including cars, minivans,
sport utility vehicles (SUVs), trucks, buses,
motorcycles, and nonroad engines.
8 Senate and House of Representatives, Clear Skies
Legislation Act of 2002, S. 2815 (July 29, 2002) andH.R.
5266 (July 26, 2002),
http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/bill.pdf
9 40CFR Parts 51, 72, 75, 96 Rule to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate
Air Quality Rule) web site
www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/
1-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EPA will propose whether to update the
paniculate matter standards in FY 2005 and will
continue the work necessary to propose whether to
update the ozone standard in FY 2006. EPA also will
provide guidance and technical support to states,
Tribes and local communities to help meet multiple
air quality standards and regional haze progress
goals, especially for those pollutants that share
common precursors or emission sources.
Healthier Indoor Air: EPA implements
two primary strategies to meet its human health
objective for indoor air quality, increasing public
awareness and increasing partnerships with non-
governmental and professional entities. EPA raises
public awareness of actual and potential indoor air
risks so that individuals can take steps to reduce
exposure. Outreach activities, in the form of
educational literature, media campaigns, hotlines, and
clearinghouse operations, provide essential
information about indoor air health risks not only to
the public, but to the professional and research
communities as well.
Underpinning EPA's outreach efforts is a
strong commitment to environmental justice,
community-based risk reductions, and customer
service. Through partnerships, EPA disseminates
multi-media materials encouraging individuals,
schools, and industry to take action to reduce health
risks in their indoor environments. In addition, EPA
uses technology transfer to improve the ways in
which all types of buildings, including schools,
homes, and workplaces, are designed, operated, and
maintained. To support these voluntary approaches,
EPA incorporates the most current science available
as the basis for recommending ways that people can
reduce exposure to indoor contaminants.
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity: In
2002, President Bush announced a new approach to
global climate change designed to harness the power
of the marketplace and technological innovation.
The President committed America to cut greenhouse
gas intensity by 18 percent over the next decade.10
EPA's voluntary climate programs play a major role
in meeting this goal by working in partnership with
businesses and other sectors through programs that
deliver multiple benefits while improving overall
scientific understanding of climate change and its
potential consequences. The core of EPA's climate
10 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate
Change Initiatives (February 14, 2002),
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/200202
14-5.html
change efforts are voluntary government/industry
partnership programs - such as the ENERGY STAR
program - designed to capitalize on the tremendous
opportunities available to consumers, businesses,
state and local governments, and organizations to
make sound investments in energy efficient
equipment and practices. These voluntary programs
remove barriers to existing and emerging
technologies in the marketplace, resulting in faster
deployment of energy efficient technology into the
residential, commercial, transportation, and industrial
sectors of the economy.
Through its Clean Automotive Technology
(CAT) program, EPA develops unique new
technologies with high potential for improving air
quality and dramatically improving vehicle
efficiency. Through partnerships with industry,
significant elements of EPA's technologies will be
introduced commercially by vehicle manufacturers
before the end of the decade. In addition, EPA works
with other key stakeholders in promoting the
development and commercialization of fuel cell
technology in support of U.S. environmental, energy,
and national security goals.
Protect the Ozone Layer: EPA's strategy
for restoring the ozone layer includes carrying out a
program that includes domestic rules and
international technology transfer. As a signatory to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer, the U.S. is obligated to regulate and
enforce the terms of the treaty domestically. In
accordance with this treaty and related Clean Air Act
requirements, EPA will continue to implement the
domestic rule-making agenda for the reduction and
control of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and
enforce rules controlling their production, import,
and emission. This includes combining market-based
regulatory approaches with sector-specific
technology guidelines and facilitating the
development and commercialization of alternatives to
methyl bromide and HCFCs. EPA will strengthen
outreach efforts to ensure efficient and effective
compliance, and continue to identify and promote
safer alternatives to curtail ozone depletion. To help
reduce international emissions, EPA will assist with
the transfer of technology to developing countries
and work with them to accelerate the phase-out of
ODSs. EPA estimates that the worldwide phase-out
of ODS will save 6.3 million lives from fatal cases of
skin cancer, avoid 299 million cases of nonfatal skin
cancers, and avoid 27.5 million cases of cataracts in
the U.S. alone between 1990 and 2165.
Because the ozone layer is not expected to
recover until the middle of this century at the earliest,
the public will continue to be exposed to higher
1-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
levels of UV radiation than existed prior to the use
and emission of ODS. Recognizing this and the
public's current sun-exposure practices, EPA will
continue education and outreach efforts to encourage
behavioral changes the primary means of reducing
UV-related health risks.
Radiation: EPA continues to meet the
statutory mandates for managing radiation waste and
controlling radioactive emissions and to fulfill its
responsibilities under Presidential Decision
Directives for radiological emergency preparedness
and response. These responsibilities form the core of
our strategy to protect the public and the environment
from unnecessary exposure to radiation. EPA works
with states, Tribes, and industry to develop
innovative training, public information and voluntary
programs to minimize these exposures.
Science and Research: To support
achievement of its clean air objectives and the overall
goal of clean air for American communities and
surrounding ecosystems, EPA will ensure that efforts
to reduce environmental risks are based on the best
available scientific information. In addition, EPA
will continue to integrate critical scientific
assessment with policy, regulatory and non-
regulatory activities.
EPA's air pollution research supports the
Agency's mandated responsibilities under the Clean
Air Act. This research falls into two distinct groups:
1) research supporting the development and
achievement of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS), and 2) research on hazardous
air pollutants. NAAQS-related research focuses on
tropospheric ozone and paniculate matter (PM),
while the Air Toxics Research program provides the
scientific underpinnings of the Agency's activities to
reduce hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as identified
in the Clean Air Act.
PM research provides methods, models, and
data on the health risks associated with exposure to
PM, alone and in combination, focusing on
exposures, health effects, mechanisms of injury, and
identification of PM components that affect public
health. In addition, both PM and tropospheric ozone
research provide implementation tools to support
efforts by industry, state, Tribal, and local regulators
to develop and improve State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to attain the NAAQS.
Research on air toxics investigates the root
causes of the environmental and human health
problems in urban areas related to these pollutants.
Efforts in this area provide the necessary health
effects data, measurements, methods, models,
information, and technical support to Federal, state,
Tribal, and local regulators and industry to estimate
human health effects and aggregate exposures to
hazardous air pollutants. Research also supports
atmospheric and emission modeling in order to
estimate fate, ambient concentrations, and mobile
source emissions of air toxics at a more refined scale.
With this information, the Agency will be in a better
position to determine risk and develop alternative
strategies for maximizing risk reduction.
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure a
high-quality air research program at EPA. The
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an
independent chartered Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) committee, meets annually to conduct
an in-depth review and analysis of EPA's Science
and Technology account. The RSAC provides its
findings to the House Science Committee and sends a
written report on the findings to EPA's Administrator
after every annual review. Moreover, EPA's Board
of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) provides counsel to
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) on the operation
of ORD's research program. Also, under the Science
to Achieve Results (STAR) program all research
projects are selected for funding through a rigorous
competitive external peer review process designed to
ensure that only the highest quality efforts receive
funding support. Our scientific and technical work
products must also undergo either internal or external
peer review, with major or significant products
requiring external peer review. The Agency's Peer
Review Handbook (2nd Edition) codifies procedures
and guidance for conducting peer review.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND FY 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Healthier Outdoor Air
• The number of people living in areas with
monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the
NAAQS for the 1-hour ozone standard will increase
by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of
53% (relative to 1992).
• The number of people living in areas with
monitored ambient PM concentrations below the
NAAQS for the PM-10 standard will increase by 1%
(relative to 2004) for cumulative total of 7% (relative
to 1992).
• Air toxics emission nationwide from
stationary and mobiles sources combined will be
reduced by an additional 1% of the updated 1993
baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative
reduction of 38%.
1-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Healthier Indoor Air
• 843,300 additional people will be living in
homes with healthier indoor air.
1,312,500 students, faculty and staff will
experience improved indoor air quality in their
schools.
Protect the Ozone Layer
• Restrict domestic consumptioOn of class II
HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tons
(ODP MTs) and restrict domestic exempted
production and import of newly produced class I
CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
• Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced
from projected levels by approximately 90 MMTCE
per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
schools, state and local governments, and other
organizations.
Radiation
Certify that 40,000 55-gallon drums of
radioactive waste (containing approximately 120,000
curies) shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant are permanently disposed of safely and
according to EPA standards.
Enhance Science and Research
• Transfer hybrid powertrain components,
originally developed for passenger car applications,
to meet size, performance, durability, and towing
requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban
delivery vehicle applications with an average
efficiency improvement of 30% over the baseline.
HIGHLIGHTS
Ensure Healthier Outdoor Air
In FY 2005, EPA will significantly expand
its efforts to reduce children's exposure to diesel
exhaust and the amount of air pollution created by
diesel school buses through its Clean School Bus
USA program. More than 24 million children in the
US ride a bus to and from school every day and
research has found that these children can be exposed
to high levels of diesel exhaust. The Agency's Clean
School Bus USA program is designed to help reduce
this exposure by providing grant funds to State,
tribal, or local government entities to upgrade (or
"retrofit") newer school buses with better emission
control technologies and/or fuel them with cleaner
fuels or to replace the oldest school buses in the fleet
with new, less polluting buses. In FY 2005, EPA will
develop a grant solicitation process that will award
these funds on a competitive basis.
In FY 2005, EPA will complete an
assessment of how sources create Fine PM in the air
and, with along with mercury emissions, the effect on
downwind areas. This assessment will support the
Fine PM NAAQS implementation, the Interstate Air
Quality Rule and the Utility Mercury Reductions
Rule. This work will also support the President's
legislative proposal on Clear Skies. EPA will begin
implementation efforts for both the Interstate Air
Quality Rule and the Utility Mercury Reductions
Rule.
The Agency will also continue to work with
states, Tribes and local communities to reduce
exposure to air pollution through implementation of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We
will provide technical support to states in developing
State Implementation Plans to aid them in
considering the transport of pollution on a regional
level in their plans. For paniculate matter, EPA will
be finalizing attainment designations while working
with states and local areas to develop control
strategies to reduce emissions. For ozone, since
designation will be finalized in 2004, the Agency will
be supporting SIP development efforts while working
with localities on innovative measures to provide
early emission reductions.
For the HAPs, FY 2005 will be a critical
year for implementing the national air toxics strategy.
The Agency will continue its transition from a
technology-based to a risk-based control program.
The Agency is still required to set technology-based
standards for area sources.
In FY 2005, EPA will, as required by the
Clean Air Act, continue the extensive residual risk
analyses for already promulgated maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards to
determine if additional standards are necessary to
reduce the remaining risks from these sources. The
Agency will continue to develop the state, local, and
Tribal component of the Air Toxics Program so that
state, local, and Tribal agencies can address emission
issues that are of concern on a state-wide, area-wide,
or community-wide basis. As part of this effort, EPA
will continue to support community assessment and
risk reduction projects. The EPA will release an
integrated final version of the national emission
inventory (NEI) using data collected from 2002. This
integrated inventory will include air toxics emissions
data for analyzing public health risks from air toxics
and strategies to reduce them, and to manage the
1-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
risks posed by air toxics emission. The Agency will
continue to develop the national ambient air toxic
network to improve characterization of both national
and community air toxic levels. Also in FY 2005, we
will be promulgating the Utility Mercury Reductions
Rule. This program may utilize a cap and trade
approach that would allow emissions trading in lieu
of a MACT standard which is less flexible and more
costly. (The proposed rule seeks comment on both
the cap and trade and MACT approaches.)
In FY 2005, EPA will establish and
implement Federal standards to require cleaner motor
vehicles, nonroad equipment, locomotives, marine
engines, and fuels that are cost-effective and
technically feasible. The Agency will continue
implementation of the Tier II and gasoline sulfur
standards. The Agency will also continue work on
the 2007 heavy-duty highway engine and diesel
sulfur requirements. In addition, EPA is
promulgating new standards and fuel requirements
for nonroad diesel fuel that will take effect for new
engines starting as early as 2008.
In addition, EPA will continue to monitor
industry compliance with vehicle, engine, and fuel
standards, and to proceed with advancements in
vehicle emission control technologies. The type and
amount of testing required at EPA's National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory continues to expand
greatly to meet the much more stringent and complex
regulations for cars, heavy-duty diesel engines, and
gasoline and diesel fuels.
Ensure Healthier Indoor Air
In FY 2005, EPA will build on the success
of its national "Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Tools for
Schools" (TfS) program and expand implementation
of this program to more schools. Adoption of EPA's
low-cost/no-cost guidelines for proper operation and
maintenance of school facilities results in healthier
indoor environments for all students and staff, but is
of particular help to children with asthma, lessening
the degree to which they are exposed to indoor
asthma triggers. By increasing the number of schools
where TfS indoor air quality guidelines are adopted
and implemented, healthier indoor air will be
provided for over a million students, staff, and
faculty.
EPA expects, as a result of Agency
programs, that over three quarters of a million people
will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments in FY 2005. Part of meeting this goal
includes expanding the Agency's successful
education and outreach efforts to the public about
sound indoor environmental management techniques
with respect to asthma. In addition, the Agency will
continue to focus on ways to assist the health-care
community to raise its awareness of, and attention it
pays to, indoor asthma triggers and their role in
provoking asthma attacks in those with the disease.
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), will continue to seek
opportunities to interact with managed care
organizations and health insurers to promote effective
asthma care practices and to encourage greater
emphasis on avoidance of asthma triggers, as part of
a comprehensive asthma treatment regimen.
Greenhouse Gases
The President's greenhouse gas program
builds on the accomplishment of EPA's voluntary
climate programs. EPA's voluntary climate change
programs have made significant progress to date.
However, opportunities remain to achieve further
pollution reductions and energy bill savings from
energy efficiency programs and greater use of cost-
effective renewable energy. In the U.S., energy
consumption causes more than 85 percent of the
major air emissions such as NOX, SO2, and CO2. At
the same time, American families and businesses
spend over $600 billion each year on energy bills.
In FY 2005, EPA will continue to build
upon its successful partnership programs such as
ENERGY STAR, the clean energy programs,
Climate Leaders, SmartWay Transport Partnership,
and Best Workplaces for Commuters programs.
Under these innovative programs we will expand our
work with companies to encourage them to take on
new voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
Stratospheric Ozone
To protect the earth's stratospheric ozone
layer in accordance with the United States'
commitment to the Montreal Protocol, EPA will
continue to regulate ozone-depleting compounds,
foster the development and use of alternative
chemicals in the U.S. and abroad, inform the public
about the dangers of overexposure to UV radiation,
and use pollution prevention strategies to require the
recycling of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and
hydrofluorocarbons.
Radiation
In FY 2005, EPA will continue to protect
people and the environment from harmful and
avoidable exposure to radiation by oversight of
radioactive waste disposal in the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant, setting protective limits on radioactive
1-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
emissions, providing guidance and training to other
Federal and state agencies in preparing for domestic
emergencies and other incidents that may involve
radiation, and develop guidance for cleaning up
radioactively-contaminated Superfund sites. We will
ensure that the Agency employs appropriate methods
to manage radioactive releases and exposures. These
include health-risk site assessments; risk modeling,
cleanup, and waste management activities; voluntary
programs to minimize exposure to radiation in
commercial products and industrial applications;
national environmental radiation monitoring;
radiological emergency response; and provision of
Federal guidance to our international, Federal, state,
and local partners.
Enhance Science and Research
The Tropospheric Ozone and Paniculate
Matter (PM) Research Programs will upgrade
methods and models to guide states in the
development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
used to achieve the NAAQS. In FY 2005, the
Agency will release an upgraded version of the
Models-3 Community Multi-scale Air Quality
(CMAQ) modeling system with upgraded
mechanisms for speeding up the model run time.
This will be an important tool for developing state
and tribal SIPs. PM research will continue to
strengthen the scientific basis for the periodic review
of the PM NAAQS, through work that includes
epidemiological and exposure studies. The PM
program will also develop tools and methods to
characterize PM sources and health effects that will
move the Agency toward its objective of reducing
Americans' exposure to PM. Important products of
the FY 2005 PM research program will include
improved receptor models and data on chemical
compounds to help identify sources that contribute to
ambient PM so that states and tribes can develop
more effective control strategies
Air toxics research provides information on
effects, exposure, and source characterization, as well
as other data to quantify existing emissions and to
identify key pollutants and strategies for cost-
effective risk management. In FY 2005, research
will focus on providing health hazard and exposure
methods, data, and models to enable the Agency to
reduce uncertainty in risk assessments, and the
production of tools that enable national, regional,
state, or local officials to identify and implement
cost-effective approaches to reduce risks from
sources of air toxics.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
Stakeholder participation: To achieve clean air,
EPA relies on the cooperation of Federal, state,
Tribal, and local government agencies; industry; non-
profit organizations; and individuals. Success is far
from guaranteed, even with the full participation of
all stakeholders. EPA has significant work to
accomplish just to reach the annual targets that lead
to the longer-term health and environmental
outcomes and improvements that are articulated in
the Clean Air goal. Meeting the Clean Air goal
necessitates a strong partnership among all the
stakeholders, but in particular among the states,
Tribes, and EPA; the Environmental Council of
States; and organizations of state and local air
pollution control officials. EPA will be working with
various stakeholders to encourage new ways to meet
the challenges of "cross regional" issues as well as to
integrate programs to address airborne pollutants
more efficiently.
Environmental factors: In developing clean air
strategies, states, Tribes, and local governments
assume normal meteorological patterns. As EPA
develops standards and programs to achieve the
Clean Air goal, it has to consider weather as a
variable in the equation for implementing standards
and meeting program goals. For example, even if an
area is implementing a number of air pollution
control programs under normal meteorological
patterns, a hot humid summer may cause an area to
exceed standards for days at a time, thereby exposing
the public to unhealthy air.
1-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Resource Summary
(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 Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$882,811.6
$557,907.1
$44,299.1
$18,145.2
$30,046.8
$99,836.4
$132,577.0
2,702.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$915,983.1
$579,059.2
$48,042.5
$19,069.4
$34,858.9
$106,936.5
$128,016.6
2,737.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,004,615.5
$659,876.2
$48,954.7
$21,813.7
$34,718.0
$108,389.3
$130,863.6
2,756.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres
Bud
$88,632.4
$80,817.1
$912.1
$2,744.3
($141.0)
$1,452.9
$2,847.1
18.7
1-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Healthier Outdoor Air
Through 2010, EPA and its partners will protect human health and the environment by attaining and
maintaining health-based air quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthier Outdoor Air
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Building and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$557,907.1
$231,825.3
$75,701.8
$243,116.5
$4,583.4
$2,680.1
1,706.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$579,059.2
$250,509.5
$81,059.9
$239,600.0
$4,645.2
$3,244.6
1,751.5
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$659,876.2
$261,196.7
$85,302.2
$304,600.0
$5003.2
$3,774.1
1,765.9
FY2005Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$80,817.1
$10,687.3
$4,242.3
$65,000.0
$358.0
$529.5
14.4
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean School Bus
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
International Capacity Building
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
$229,633.4
$50.6
$13,483.1
$15,667.4
$12,724.8
$19,120.1
$92,966.1
$28,116.6
$55,525.5
$3,570.0
$0.0
$87,049.5
$557,907.1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,500.0
$228,550.0
$235.0
$11,050.0
$21,814.9
$0.0
$23,702.2
$96,657.4
$28,655.1
$60,446.8
$1,541.3
$1,106.2
$103,800.3
$579,059.2
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$65,000.0
$228,550.0
$127.0
$11,050.0
$22,857.5
$0.0
$24,302.0
$102,849.9
$27,358.7
$64,466.5
$1,633.9
$1,110.8
$110,569.9
$659,876.2
FY2005Req.v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$63,500.0
$0.0
($108.0)
$0.0
$1,042.6
$0.0
$599.8
$6,192.5
($1,296.4)
$4,019.7
$92.6
$4.6
$6,769.7
$80,817.1
1-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
In 2005 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an
additional 1% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 38%.
In 2004 Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an
additional 2% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 37%.
In 2003 End-of-year- FY 2003 data will be available in late 2009 to verify that air toxics emissions nationwide
from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional 1% of the updated 1993
baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction 35%.
Performance Measures:
Combined Stationary and Mobile Source
Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions
Reduced
Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions
Reduced
Major Sources, Area and All Other Air
Toxics Emissions Reduced
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
2
.71
1.59
+.13
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1
.80
1.59
+.14
Percent
Million
Tons
Million
Tons
Million
Tons
Baseline: In 1993, the last year before the MACT standards and mobile source regulations developed under the
Clean Air Act began to be implemented, stationary and mobile sources are now estimated to have
emitted 6.0 million tons of air toxics. (EPA's prior estimate was 4.3 million tons and was updated with
improved inventory data.) Air toxics emission data are revised every three years to generate
inventories for the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In the intervening years between the update of the
NTI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to
estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. EMS-HAP projects emissions, by adjusting point,
area and mobile 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.
Reduce SO2 Emissions
In 2005 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards
achieving the year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9
million tons from the 1980 baseline.
In 2004 Maintain or increase annual SO2 emission reduction of approximately 5 million tons from the 1980
baseline. Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress
towards achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for utilities.
In 2003 End of year 2003 data will be available in the last quarter of 2004 to verify that annual emissions
reduction of approximately 5 million tons from utility sources were maintained or increased during
2003.
1-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
SO2 Emissions
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
5,000,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
6,900,000
Tons
Reduced
Baseline: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the 1980 emissions
baseline. The 1980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 17.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This
inventory was developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and 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 which is 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.
Reduce NOx Emissions
In 2003 End of year 2003 data will be available in Summer 2004 to verify that the Agency has achieved the
annual emission reduction goal.
Performance Measures:
NOx Reductions
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Tons
Reduced
Baseline: Performance Baseline: The base of comparison for assessing progress on this annual performance goal
is emissions that would have occurred in the absence of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels -1 Hour
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS
for the 1-hour ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53%
(relative to 1992).
In 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS
for the 1-hour ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 47%
(relative to 1992).
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for approx. 161.5 million people living in monitored areas attaining the
ozone std; certified that 5 areas of the remaining 54 nonattainment areas have attained the 1-hour
NAAQS for ozone thus increasing the no. of people living in areas with healthy air by 5.8 million.
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas with
Ambient 1-hour Ozone Concentrations
Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 1992
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
Data Lag
1-13
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
47
55
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
53
40
Percent
Percent
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Number of Areas with Ambient 1-hour
Ozone Concentrations Below the Level of
the NAAQS as Compared to 1992
Total Number of People who Live in Areas
Designated to Attainment of the Clean Air
Standards for Ozone
Areas Designated to Attainment for the
Ozone Standard
Additional People Living in Newly
Designated Areas with Demonstrated
Attainment of the Ozone Standard
VOCs Reduced from Mobile Sources
NOx Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY 2003
Actuals
161,485,900
5,800,000
1,900,000
1,400,000
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
167,300,000
5,800,000
2,040,000
1,653,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
174,562,000
7,276,790
855,624
1,693,259
People
Areas
People
Tons
Tons
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment
for the clean air national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is those areas that
are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQs. Through FY 2003, 161,485,905 are living in areas
designated to attainment; 51 areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants. The 2000
MOBILE 6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions as of FY 2005. The
2000 baseline for VOC emissions is 7.7 million tons; the baseline is 11.8 million tons. The 2000
MOBILE 6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions as of FY 2005. The
2000 baseline for VOC emissions is 7.7 million tons; the baseline is 11.8 million tons. Beginning in
FY 2004, EPA changed the basis for evaluating progress for this measure to reflect actual measured
levels of air quality. Previously, EPA had not defined an area as having clean air until the area was
formally classified as having met health-based standards. The procedural requirements for
classification may require a year or more to complete. The previous total population numbers were for
2000 - 33.4 million (m) 2001 - 382.m; 2002 - 41.7m; 2003 - 47.8m.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-10
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS
for the PM-10 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to
1992).
In 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS
for the PM-10 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 6% (relative to
1992).
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for 120 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM
standards; increased by 252 thousand the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that
have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas with
Ambient PM-10 Concentrations Below the
Level of the NAAQSas Compared to 1992
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Percent
1-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of Areas with Ambient PM-10
Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQSas Compared to 1992
Total Number of People who Live in Areas
Designated in Attainment with Clean Air
Standards for PM
Areas Designated to Attainment for the
PM-10 Standard
Additional People Living in Newly
Designated Areas with Demonstrated
Attainment of the PM Standard
PM-10 Reduced from Mobile Sources
PM-2.5 Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
120,379,036
5
252,387
25,000
18,000
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
40
120,700,000
9
380,000
18,000
13,500
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
50
122,308,000
1,549,648
62,161
61,217
Percent
People
Areas
People
Tons
Tons
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as
attainment for the clean air national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is
those areas that are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQs. Through FY 2003, 120,379,036
are living in areas designated to attainment; 5 areas are designated to attainment for this/these
pollutants. The 1995 baseline for PM-10 reduced from mobile sources is 880,000 tons. The
2000 MOBILE 6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions as of FY 2005.
The 2000 baseline for PM 2.5 from mobile sources is 500,000 tons; the 2000 baseline for PM 2.5
from mobile sources is 613,000 tons. Beginning in FY 2004, EPA changed the basis for
evaluating progress fro this measure to reflect actual measured levels of air quality. Previously,
EPA had not defined an area as having clean air until the area was formally classified as having
met health-based standards. The procedural requirements for classification may require a year or
more to complete. The previous total population numbers were for 2000 - 1.2 million (m) 2001 -
1.2m; 2002 - 3.4m; 2003 - 6.2m.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy CO, SO2, NO2, Lead
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations
below the NAAQS will increase by less than 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53%
(relative to 1992).
In 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations
below the NAAQS will increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to
1992).
In 2003 Maintained healthy air quality for 53 million people living in monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2,
NO2, and Lead standards; increased by .74 million the number of people living in areas with healthy
air quality that have newly attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas with
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
53
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
53
Percent
1-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb
Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQS as Compared to 1992
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of Areas with Ambient CO, SO2,
NO2, or Pb Concentrations Below the
Level of the NAAQS as Compared to 1992
Total Number of People Living in Areas
Designated in Attainment with Clean Air
Standards for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb
Areas Designated to Attainment for the
CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb Standards
Additional People Living in Newly
Designated Areas with Demonstrated
Attainment of the CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb
Standards
CO Reduced from Mobile Sources
Total Number of People Living in Areas
with Demonstrated Attainment of the NO2
Standard
FY 2003
Actuals
167,860,905
435,309
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
87
174,000,000
19
6,150,000
12,636,000
n/a
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
77
174,222,000
209,991
-841,971
n/a
Percent
People
Areas
People
Tons
People
Baseline: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as
attainment for the clean air national ambient air quality standards. The 1992 baseline for areas is
those areas that are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQs. Through FY 2003, 167,860,905
are living in areas designated to attainment; 108 areas are designated to attainment for this/these
pollutants. The 1995 baseline for mobile source emissions for CO was 70,947,000 tons. For
mobile sources, the 2000 MOBILE 6 inventory is used as the baseline for FY 2005; the 2000
baseline for CO emissions is 79 million tons. While on-road CO emissions continue to decrease,
there is an overall increase in mobile source CO emissions due to a growth in nonroad CO.
Beginning in FY 2004, EPA changed the basis for evaluating progress fro this measure to reflect
actual measured levels of air quality. Previously, EPA had not defined an area as having clean air
until the area was formally classified as having met health-based standards. The procedural
requirements for classification may require a year or more to complete. The previous total
population numbers were for 2000 - 27.7 million (m) 2001 - 36.3m; 2002 - 36.7m; 2003 - 53.7m.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS
for the 8-hour ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7%
(relative to 2001).
In 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS
for the 8-hour standard will increase by 3% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 3% (relative to
2001).
Performance Measures:
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
People who Live in Areas with Ambient 8-hour
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQS
as Compared to 2001
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
Areas with Ambient 8-hour Ozone
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQS
as Compared to 2001
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
<1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
<1
<1
Percent
Percent
Baseline: EPA will designate the attainment status for areas in April 2004. With that data, we will have the
population baseline as well as the number of areas that are not in attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM- 2.5
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS
for the PM-2.5 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1%
(relative to 2001).
In 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS
for the PM-2.5 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1%
(relative to 2001).
In 2003
Performance Measures:
Cumulative Percent Increase in the Number of
People who Live in Areas with Ambient PM-2.5
Concentrations Below the Level of the NAAQS
as Compared to 2001
Percent Increase in the Number of Areas with
Ambient PM-2.5 Concentrations Below the Level
of the NAAQS as Compared to 2001
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1
Percent
Percent
Baseline: EPA will designate the attainment status for areas in FY 2005. With that data, we will have the
population baseline as well as the number of areas that are not in attainment for the PM-2.5 standard.
Increase Tribal Air Capacity
In 2004 Increase the number of tribes monitoring air quality for ozone and/or paniculate matter from 42 to 45
and increase the percentage of tribes monitoring clean air for ozone from 64% to 67% and paniculate
matter from 71% to 72%.
In 2003 39 tribes monitored air quality for ozone and/or paniculate matter; 66% of tribes monitored clean air
for ozone and 68% monitored for paniculate matter.
1-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Percent of Tribes with Tribal Lands
Monitoring for Ozone and/or Paniculate
Matter
Percent of Monitoring Tribes Monitoring
Clean Air for Ozone
Percent of Monitoring Tribes Monitoring
Clean Air for Paniculate Matter
Number of Tribes Implementing Air
Programs
FY 2003
Actuals
39 tribes
66
68
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
13
67
72
30
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Percent
Percent
Percent
Tribes
Baseline:
Acid Rain
In 2005
In 2005
In 2004
In 2004
There are 570 Federally recognized Tribes with 341 Tribes having Tribal lands (Alaska Native
Villages (Tribes) number 229 entities but only one 'reservation"). During 2003, 39 Tribes
conducted monitoring for ozone and/or paniculate matter 15 Tribes monitored their airsheds for
ozone (10 of which recorded clean air), and 37 Tribes monitored for paniculate matter (25 of
which recorded clean air). EPA will continue to work with the Tribes to increase the number
and/or percentage of Tribes that monitor for clean air.
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline.
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline.
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from
baseline.
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations 25% from
baseline.
Performance Measures:
Total Annual Average Sulfur Deposition
and Ambient Sulfate concentrations
reduced (percent from baseline)
Total Annual Average Nitrogen Deposition
and Ambient Nitrate concentrations
reduced (percent from baseline)
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
27
Baseline: Sulfur and nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them
unable to support fish and other aquatic life. Reductions in both total sulfur and nitrogen
deposition is critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient sulfate
and ambient nitrate ("acid rain paniculate") contributes to unhealthy air and respiratory problems
in humans, especially children and other sensitive populations. The baseline is established from
monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing a three year of deposition
levels produced from the CASTNet site (http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/castnet/sites.html).
1-18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMACE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
• Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in Air Toxics Emissions
• Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
• Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
• All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
Data Source: 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 1996 NTI and the 1999 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source estimates that are used as input to
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) modeling. The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs contain estimates of
facility-specific HAP emissions and their source specific parameters necessary for modeling such as location
(latitude and longitude) and facility characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.)
The primary sources of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI 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. To produce a complete
model-ready national inventory, EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30 non-point source categories such as
wildfires and residential heating sources not included in the state, local and Tribal data. Mobile source data are
developed using data provided by state and local agencies and Tribes and the most current onroad and nonroad
models developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The draft 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS
underwent extensive review by state and local agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.
For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/cMef/nti/index.htmlfati. 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.htmM1999
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air
Pollutants) is used to estimate annual emissions of air toxics for the 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS (and for all
years in-between). EMS-HAP is an emissions processor that performs the steps needed to process an emission
inventory for input into the NATA model. These steps include: spatial allocation of nonpoint stationary area and
mobile source emissions from the county level to the census tract level, and temporal allocation of annual emission
rates to annually averaged (i.e., same rate for every day of the year) 3-hour emission rates. In addition, EMS-HAP
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.
For more information and references on EMS-HAP, please go to the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/scramOO l/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 on the following website:
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
1-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
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 is currently developing an automated QC content tool for data providers to use prior to submitting their data to
EPA. After investigating errors identified using the automated QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific
guidance on augmenting data for missing data fields. This guidance is available at the following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationmemo 99nei 60603.pdf
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/eill/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.
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-March2003.
Both the full draft 1996 National Air Toxics Assessment and several of the individual components of the assessment
have 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 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
1-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
understanding of air toxics. Many of the SAB comments related to possible improvements for future assessments
(additional national-scale assessments are being planned for the base year 1999 and for every 3 years thereafter) and
raised technical issues that would merit further investigation. EPA will follow up on these issues. Additional
information is available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
The following describes the various scientific peer review activities that are associated with the 1996 national air
toxics assessment:
• EPA's Science Advisory Board peer-reviewed the ASPEN dispersion model used in the Cumulative Exposure
Project (CEP). The Science Advisory Board issued their report in 1996. It can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/sab/fiscal96.htm.
• The HAPEM exposure model underwent a peer review by EPA scientists and an external peer review in the
summer of 2000. While the peer review identified several limitations inherent in the current methodology, it is
still acknowledged as an appropriate tool to help better understand the relation of human exposures to ambient
concentration levels.
Data Limitations: 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 1993 NTI, it is not suitable for input to dispersion models.
For a discussion of the data limitations 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.htmrffhaps99 .
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant improvement over the
baseline 1993 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
References: The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
ftp site: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
Audience: individuals who want full access to NTI files
NEON: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
CHIEF: 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
1-21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
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
Audience: State and local agencies, Tribes, industry, EPA, and the public
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• SO2 emissions reduced (tons/year from baseline)
• Total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations reduced (% from
baseline)
• Total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate concentrations reduced (% from
baseline)
Performance Databases:
• Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SO2 and NOX emissions collected by Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous monitoring methods.
• Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) - dry acid deposition; weekly average ambient
concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, ammonium; meteorological data required for
calculating deposition rates.
• National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet acid (sulfur and nitrogen) deposition.
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 2,500 fossil fuel-fired utility units affected under
the Title IV Acid Rain Program. For the 5-month ozone season (May 1 - September 30), ETS receives and
processes hourly NOX measurements from electric generation units (EGUs) and certain large industrial combustion
units affected by NOX Budget Programs under the NOX State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call. In 2004, the initial
compliance year for the NOX SIP Call, up to 2000 units in as many as 20 states and D.C. will be reporting seasonal
NOX data to ETS. Over 900 units have been reporting these data since 1999 under the OTC NOX Budget Program.
CASTNet measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically, CASTNet measures sulfate and
nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 70 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).
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 230 monitoring sites. EPA, along
with several other Federal agencies, states, and other 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 and welfare outcomes. These networks are aging and need to be
modernized to ensure the continued availability of these direct environmental measures. Much of the equipment is
beyond its useful life, replacement parts are difficult to procure, and the data processing is outmoded and expensive.
To date, modernization of this network has not been considered a priority. Unless this situation changes, the
Agency's ability to assess long-term performance measures will be compromised.
Methods, Assumption, and Suitability: Consistent, well-defined methods for data aggregation and monitor tests
have been incorporated into program regulations (40 CFR Part 75 (Continuous Emissions Monitoring). Original
final rule issued 58 FR 3701-3757 (Jan 11, 1993). Rule revisions to improve program issued 60 FR 26510 (May 17,
1995), 61 FR 59142 (Nov 20, 1996), 63 FR 57356, 573581 and 57499 (Oct 27, 1998), 64 FR 28564 (May 26, 1999),
and 67 FR 40394 (June 12, 2002)).that were promulgated in notice and comment (public) rulemakings. These
1-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
methods are used to aggregate data across all affected utilities for each pollutant and related source operating
parameters. They specify how to calculate the baseline and test for quality assurance.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC requirements in the program regulations require that a series of quality assurance
tests are performed at least annually to assure valid 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 compensate for the measurement bias. Further
information available on the Internet: 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). Available at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/library/qapp.html.
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.
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/reporting/index.html (see Electronic Data Report Review Process, ETS Tolerance
Tables, Active ETS Error Codes/Messages and Range Format Errors). 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 Oceanographic
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, handled entirely
by the NADP housed 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.
Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNet, additional monitoring sites are needed.
CASTNet has no geographic coverage for the middle of the country and very limited coverage in the Northwest.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is investigating ways to modernize aging CASTNet equipment; streamline
site operation, data collection and processing methods; reduce system operating costs; and provide a foundation for
mutipollutant measurement compatible with other networks.
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/airmarkets/arp/index.html/ and in the electronic Code of Federal Regulations at
http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.htm (40 CFR parts 72-78.)
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
1-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient criteria pollutant
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient criteria pollutant concentrations below
the level of the NAAQS.
• Areas designated to attainment for the NAAQS.
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: Air quality levels are evaluated relative to the level of the appropriate
NAAQS. Next the populations in areas with air quality concentrations above the level of the NAAQS are
aggregated. 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/cludvgxb/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: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/Department of Commerce.
FREDS: None known
1-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. Uncertainty in projections (from
modeling) and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological conditions for example) exist.
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 will be 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 2005 Performance Measures:
• Estimated Mobile Source VOC Emissions
• Estimated Mobile Source NOx Emissions
• Estimated Mobile Source PM 10 Emissions
• Estimated Mobile Source PM 2.5 Emissions
• Estimated Mobile Source CO Emissions
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories. 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, paniculate matter, and toxics from cars, trucks,
and motorcycles under various conditions.
The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, paniculate matter, and sulfur dioxides from small and large off road vehicles,
equipment, and engines.
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 Mobile 6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)
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, like rulemaking.
1-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile source emissions estimates 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 Modeling 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
QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.
Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and external parties.
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/.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671g)
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
National Highway System Designation Act
1-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Healthier Indoor Air
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier indoor air in homes,
schools, and office buildings.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthier Indoor Air
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Buildings & Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$44,299.1
$32,649.2
$1,611.8
$9,415.3
$417.0
$205.8
152.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$48,042.5
$37,916.4
$1,289.0
$8,150
$414.6
$272.5
149.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$48,954.7
$38,695.1
$1,367.3
$8,150
$465.0
$277.3
153.2
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$912.1
$778.6
$78.3
$0
$50.4
$4.8
3.4
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Indoor Air: Asthma Program
Indoor Air: Environment Tobacco Smoke
Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace
Program
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$9,415.3
$9,062.6
$2,832.8
$5,843.6
$9,005.2
$8,139.6
$44,299.1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$8,150.0
$11,097.0
$3,617.5
$5,871.1
$11,176.2
$8,130.7
$48,042.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$8,150.0
$11,197.3
$3,695.1
$6,065.6
$11,258.2
$8,588.5
$48,954.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$100.3
$77.6
$194.5
$82.0
$457.7
$912.1
1-27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
In 2005 843,300 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
In 2004 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor environments.
In 2003 End-of-year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify that 834,400 additional people were
living in healthier residential indoor environments.
Performance Measures:
People Living in Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
834,400
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
843300
r> i
People
Baseline: 1. By 2005, increase the number of people living in homes built with radon reducing features to
4,539,000 from 1,862,280 in 1994 (cumulative) .* 2. By 2005, decrease the number of children
exposed to ETS from 27,502,000 in 1994 to 24,119,404 (cumulative) .** 3. By 2005, increase by
500,000 the number of people with asthma and their caregivers who are educated about indoor air
asthma triggers. * The 1994 baseline for the number of new homes built with radon-resistant design
features has changed from 684,000 tO 384,000. This is due to a recent review of historical NAHB
Research Center reports wehich determined that a significant number of "rough-in" installations were
reported as radon-resistant new construction. "Rough-in" installations are not complete radon-
reduction systems and do not provide any risk reduction, and they should not be considered when
estimating the number of homes built with radon-resistant new construction. In order to improve the
integrity of the results that are being reported, EPA is dropping homes with rough-in installations when
estimating the amount of homes built with radon-resistant construction. The baseline of existing
homes mitigated remains the same at 300,000 in 1994.
** The 1995 Census Report that EPA was using for a baseline population (19,500,000) for children 0
to 6 years of age represented only childeren 0 to 4 years of age. This recently came to our attention
after an internal review of the baselines. The actual baseline population of children from the ages of 0
to 6 should be 27,502,168. In order to improve the integrity of the results that are being reported, EPA
is correcting the baseline population to the comprehensive number which includes the ages 0 to 6 years
old. Our 2005 goal of decreasing the percentage of childern exposed, remains at 15% and the starting
point remains at 27.3%.
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
In 2005 1,3 12,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2004 1,575,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2003 End-of-year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify that 1,050,000 students, faculty and
staff experienced improved indoor air quality in their schools.
Performance Measures:
Students/Staff Experiencing Improved
IAQ in Schools
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1,575,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1312500
Students/St
aff
1-28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Baseline: The nation has approximately 117,000* schools with an average of 525 students, faculty and staff
occupying them for a total baseline population of 61,425,000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance
implementation began in 1997. For FY 2004, the program projects an additional 3,000 schools will
implement the guidance and seeks to obtain implementation commitments from 15 of the 100 largest
school districts in the U.S. with an average of 140,000 per district. (Additional, not cumulative since
there is not an established baseline for good IAQ practices in schools.)
* According to the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, between
1994 and 2002, 7,000 new schools were built. For the revised strategic plan we increased our baseline
to incorporate the increase. Our FY 2008 strategic goal incorporates the additional school.
Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
In 2005 150,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their workplaces.
Performance Measures:
150,000 additional office workers will
experience improved air quality in their
workplaces.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
150,000
People
Baseline: There are approximately 750,000 office buildings with 12 billion square feet. The mean worker
density is 1 office worker per 500 square feet. Therefore, a total of 24 million office workers work in
office buildings. Our 2005 goal is to get 5% of all office buildings to adopt good IAQ measures
which translates into 1.2 million office workers (cumulative from 1994). Our 2008 goal is to get an
additional 3% of all office buildings to adopt good IAQ measures which translates to 720,000 office
workers (cumulative at 240,000 per year).
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Overarching Performance Measure: People Living in Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2005 Performance Measure: People Living in Radon Resistant Homes
Performance Database: Survey
Data Source: The survey 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 radon resistant. The percentage built radon resistant from the sample is then
used to estimate what percent of all homes built nationwide are radon resistant To calculate the number of people
living in radon resistant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67 people per household. NAHB Research Center has
been conducting this annual builder practices survey for over a decade, and has developed substantial expertise in
the survey's design, implementation, and analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent
confidence interval.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual survey of home builders in
the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices. NAHB Research Center voluntarily conducts this
survey to maintain an awareness of industry trends in order to improve American housing and to be responsive to
the needs of the home building industry. The annual survey gathers information such as types of houses built, lot
sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, etc. The NAHB Research Center
Builder Survey also gathers information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses, and these
questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire.
1-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year is typically mailed out to
home builders. For the most-recently completed survey, for building practices during calendar year 2001, NAHB
Research Center reported mailing the survey to about 44,000 active United States home building companies, and
received about 2,800 responses which translates to a response rate of about 6.4 percent. This is the response rate for
the entire survey. The survey responses are analyzed with respect to State market areas and Census Divisions in the
United States, and are analyzed to assess the percentage and number of homes built each year that incorporate
radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-
reducing features in high radon potential areas in the United States (high risk areas). Other analyses include radon-
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques for radon-resistant new
home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-year comparisons.
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC procedures are not entirely
known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures have been established, which includes QA/QC by
the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.
Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality Review procedures
are not entirely known. 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. In some cases, where open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three percent of the
values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each year's draft report from NAHB Research
Center is conducted by the EPA project officer.
Data Limitations: The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The NAHB Research Center
survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of NAHB. Home builders that are not
members of NAHB are typically smaller, sporadic builders that in some cases build homes as a secondary
profession. To augment the list of NAHB members in the survey sample, 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.
Although an overall response rate of 6.4 percent could be considered low, it is the response rate for the entire survey,
of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small portion. 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. NAHB Research Center also makes efforts to reduce
the potential for positive bias in the way the radon-related survey questions are presented.
Error Estimate: See Data Limitations
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/. The most recent report, "Builder Practices Report: Radon Reducing
Features in New Construction 2001," Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB Research
Center, Inc., January 2, 2003. Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes
Performance Database: External
Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per radon mitigated
home and then multiplies it by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A.
1-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from fan manufacturers, EPA relies on the business practices for
reporting data.
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from fan manufacturers. 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 untapped 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.
Error Estimate: N/A.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html for National performance/progress reporting
(National Radon Results: 1985-1999) on radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports used to document
the outcomes of individual projects; a media tracking study used to assess behavior change within that sector of the
public viewing the public service announcements; and a national telephone survey (National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma) which seeks information about the steps taken by people with asthma, and
parents of children with asthma, to minimize exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers. Additional
information about asthma morbidity and mortality in the US is obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook.
Data Source: Each component of the database has a unique source. Partner status reports are generated by those
organizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. An independent
initiative of the Advertising Council provides media tacking of outcomes of all of their public service campaigns
and this is publicly available information. The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma (OMB
control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on asthma morbidity and mortality is available from the National
Center for Health Statistics at the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs). Data on annual expenditures for health and lost
productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook
(www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02 chtbk.pdf).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
Partner status reports: EPA requires all funded organizations to provide quarterly reports identifying the numbers
of children, adults, and health care professionals educated about indoor asthma triggers, the numbers of homes,
schools, and child care centers in which triggers have been identified, and the type of mitigation actions taken in
these environments. In addition, decreases in the number of emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and other
markers of asthma morbidity are requested from those partner organizations with access to such data. EPA believes
that the information reflects progress made at achieving performance measures.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma: (OMB control number 2060-0490): This survey is the
most robust data set for this performance measure, but it is not administered annually. EPA has designed a survey
instrument (telephonic survey) in consultation with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data
1-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
necessary to measure the Agency's objectives. In addition, care has been taken to ensure that the survey questions
target the population with asthma by using the same qualifier question that appears on other national surveys on
asthma collected by the CDC.
EPA estimates that of the 26,600 households which make up the sampling frame, 60 percent, or approximately
16,000, will be contacted successfully and will agree to participate in the screening survey. Of these approximately
16,000 individuals, EPA expects that 15 percent, or approximately 2,400 individuals, will either have asthma or live
with someone who does. Only those individuals who have asthma or live with someone who does are considered to
be eligible respondents.
Respondents are asked to provide primarily yes/no responses. In some cases, respondents are given a range of
responses in the form of multiple choice questions and are asked to indicate the one which best defines their
response. The survey seeks information on those environmental management measures that the Agency considers
important in reducing an individual's exposure to known indoor environmental asthma triggers. By using yes/no
and multiple choice questions, the Agency has substantially reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent
to complete the survey and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.
The information collected may be used to establish a baseline to accurately reflect the characteristics of our nation's
asthma population and by which to evaluate progress made at achieving performance measures.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible;
site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers as warranted. The National Survey is designed in accordance with
approved Agency procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/plavers.html.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to ascertain reliability
and resolves any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Partner organization status reporting is that limitation
inherent to serf-reporting. For the National Survey, random digit dialing methodology is used to ensure that a
representative sample of households has been contacted; however, the survey is subject to inherent limitations of
voluntary telephone surveys of representative samples. Limitations of phone surveys include: 1) inconsistency of
interviewers following survey directions (i.e., an interviewer might: ask the questions incorrectly or inadvertently
lead the interviewee to a response); or 2) call at an inconvenient time. For example, the respondent might not want
to be interrupted at the time of the call and may resent the intrusion of the phone call. The answers will reflect this
attitude. In addition, a telephone survey is limited to those households with a telephone.
Error Estimate: The Agency expects to achieve results within the following percentage points of the true value at
the 90 percent confidence level (survey instrument):
Adult Asthmatics plus or minus 3.0%
Child Asthmatics plus or minus 4.0%
Low Income Adult Asthmatics plus or minus 6.5%
These precision rates are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the results measured by the survey accurately
reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic population.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data from the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma (OMB
control number 2060-0490) was collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and represents the first data collection
with this instrument.
References: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs)
NHLBI Chartbook (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/02 chtbk.pdf).
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/).
1-32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Survey results will be available in early March 2004. Questions may be directed to the Indoor Environment
Division.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of Children under 6 not Exposed to Secondhand Smoke (ShS) in the
Home.
Performance Databases: The performance database consists of Smoke-free Home Pledges that are tracked through
a hotline and website and that are documented in a monthly pledge report generated by EPA staff; Cooperative
Agreement Partner status reports used to document the outcomes of individual projects; a media tracking study used
to assess behavior change within that sector of the public viewing ShS public service announcements; and a national
telephone survey (National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma) which includes a series of questions
about whether respondents allow smoking in their home, and if so, whether young children are in the household.
Expenditures for medical costs of childhood illness attributable to ShS were taken from an analysis of previous
studies and reports on medical costs. Information about ShS in the US is obtained periodically from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) including the National Health Interview Survey (for use in benchmarking
and national tobacco/ShS exposure data), the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (for use of cotinine
data), and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (for use of state tobacco/ShS exposure data).
Data Sources: Each component of the database has a unique source. Partner status reports are generated by those
organizations receiving funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. As part of their
Cooperative Agreement, Consumer Federation of America Foundation provides media tracking of outcomes of all of
their public service campaigns and this is publicly available information. The National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. The medical costs associated with SHS
were from 2002 Medical Costs of Childhood Illness Attributable to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Total National
Costs and Cost to Managed Care Organizations, a report prepared by Abt Associates Inc., an EPA funded
contractor. Additional references are the US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (which includes the 1986 seminal
document on involuntary smoking and demographic profiles of smoking/ShS exposure in US), the National Cancer
Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series (the sum of current knowledge of clinical trials, clinical guidelines and
the validation of EPA and California EPA risk assessments), the NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of
the US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (contains fundamental policy questions regarding tobacco/ShS
including smoking in the home ), and Healthy People 2010 (which includes information on cotinine, ShS exposure
and children).
Other related sources: National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are
part of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs); Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm).
This information contributes to the knowledge set that helps us to calculate end of year results.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Partner status reports: EPA requires all funded organizations to provide
status reports on their activities identifying, for example, number of presentations given, pledges signed, number of
people trained (i.e. health officials, daycare providers), number of parents reached, and projected number of children
no longer exposed as a result of their activities. EPA believes that the information reflects progress made at
achieving performance objectives.
National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma (OMB control number 2060-0490): This survey is the
most robust data set for the FY 2005 performance measure, however it is not administered annually. EPA has
designed a survey instrument (telephonic survey) in consultation with staff from EPA's Indoor Environments
Division (IED), EPA's Regional offices, and the CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that
respondents will understand the questions asked and will provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agency's
objectives.
EPA estimates that of the 26,600 households, which make up the sampling frame, 60 percent, or approximately
16,000, will be contacted successfully and will agree to participate in the screening survey. SHS information will be
obtained from these individuals. The sample will be large enough to yield the number of responses necessary to
achieve an estimated two percent precision rate at a 95 percent confidence level.
1-33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Respondents are asked to provide primarily yes/no responses. In some cases, respondents are given a range of
responses in the form of multiple choice questions and are asked to indicate the one which best defines their
response. By using yes/no and multiple-choice questions, the Agency has substantially reduced the amount of time
necessary for the respondent to complete the survey and has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.
EPA believes that the information collected may be useful in establishing a benchmark, in addition to the 1994 and
1998 National Health Interview Survey, for the number of children, ages 6 and under, who are exposed to ShS in the
home.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and completely as possible;
site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers as warranted. The National Survey was designed in accordance
with approved Agency procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/plavers.html.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to ascertain reliability
and resolves any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status reporting is that
serf-reporting has an inherent limitation. For the National Survey, random digit dialing methodology is used to
ensure that a representative sample of households has been contacted; however, the survey is subject to inherent
limitations in voluntary telephone surveys of representative samples. Limitations of phone surveys include: 1)
possible inconsistency of interviewers following survey directions. For example, an interviewer might; ask the
questions incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response; or 2) call at an inconvenient time. For
example, the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may resent the intrusion of the
phone call. The answers will reflect this attitude. In addition, a telephone survey is limited to those households with
a telephone or households that speak English. Currently available cotinine survey data does not address 50% of the
age specific portion of EPA's target population. It does not include birth to three years old, the portion of children
most susceptible to the effects of ShS.
Error Estimate: EPA's survey has been designed to ensure that, at the 95 percent confidence level, its estimate of
the number of children fewer than 6 not exposed to ShS in the house is within approximately two percentage points
of the true value. EPA is confident that these precision rates are more than adequate.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Data from the National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma (OMB
control number 2060-0490) was collected from August 4-September 17, 2003 and represents the first data collection
with this instrument. This survey utilized the exact questions on SHS from the 1994 and 1998 National Health
Interview Survey and will continue to assist in evaluating progress made at achieving our goal. In the future,
medical cost data could be collected from a possible expansion of CDC's Smoking Attributable Morbidity and
Mortality Economic Costs (SAMMEC) software.
References: EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/) Survey results will be available in early
March 2004. Questions may be directed to the Indoor Environments Division.
National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are part of the National
Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm).
US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm).
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/).
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
(http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/).
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/).
1-34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their
schools
Performance Database: The performance database consists of cooperative partner status reports, annual results
reports from the regions, and tracking numbers of disseminated kits. A survey of a representative sample of schools
was completed during 2002. The survey serves to verify the number of schools using indoor air quality management
plans consistent with EPA's guidance.
Data Source: The sources for the database include cooperative partners, regional data, information from EPA's
National Clearinghouse on numbers of kits disseminated, and the statistical sample of all public and private schools
in the nation during the 1999 - 2000 school year. (United States Department of Education National Center for
Education Statistics).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Calculations for the number of people experiencing improved IAQ are
based upon an estimated average of 525 students, staff and faculty per school (data are from the United States
Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics). Estimates of the number of schools
implementing IAQ management plans, consistent with EPA's guidance, are conservative, and based upon a small
percentage of the number of kits distributed, and the number of schools implementing IAQ management plans
reported by cooperative partners and regions. A total of 809 completed questionnaires were returned for a survey
response rate of 40%. There was no evidence of systematic error or selection bias associated with the response rate.
The survey helped determine the number of schools adopting and implementing good indoor air quality (IAQ)
practices consistent with EPA's IAQ Tools for Schools (TfS) guidance.
The distribution of returned and targeted questionnaires was similar with respect to the stratification criteria of
geographic region and public/private schools. Academic resource, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics
of schools that returned the survey were approximately equal to those of schools that did not return the
questionnaire. IAQ management practices were independent of the amount of follow-up effort required to elicit
return of a questionnaire. These findings indicate that the EPA can use the survey results to make national
projections regarding IAQ practices in schools.
Survey results were evaluated against the IAQ Practice Index, a scoring system developed by weighting possible
responses to questions regarding Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and ventilation rates. An IAQ
Practice Index score of >70 was considered indicative of an adequate IAQ management plan.
QA/QC Procedures: A small sample of returned questionnaires was selected at random and the manual data
transcription from the original paper copy to the electronic database was reviewed for completeness and accuracy. A
total of 3,670 entries were cross-referenced between the database and the paper copy of the survey. A few minor
typographical errors in results from the first page of the questionnaire were identified (e.g., a period missing in P.O.
Box or letters inverted in a name). Otherwise, all responses to the actual survey questions were accurately entered
into the database.
As a quality control procedure, a random sample of surveys was scored manually and the IAQ Management Practice
Index was computed by hand. The scores and indices were compared to the corresponding values generated by the
computerized scoring program. In total, 140 data points were checked. The results of all the surveys that were
hand-scored matched the values from the computerized scoring. In addition, the IAQ Practices in Schools Survey
Analysis procedures and report underwent technical review by a qualified party at Environmental Health and
Engineering, Inc. (EH&E), EPA's contractor, not involved in the original analysis. Survey is designed in accordance
with approved Agency procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/plavers.html
Data Quality Review: Entries were cross-referenced between the database and the paper copy of the survey to
ensure completeness and quality of responses. See QA/QC procedures, above.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status reporting is that
self-reporting has an inherent limitation. For the National Survey, random digit dialing methodology is used to
ensure that a representative sample of households has been contacted; however, the survey is subject to inherent
limitations in voluntary telephone surveys of representative samples. Limitations of phone surveys include: 1)
1-35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
possible inconsistency of interviewers following survey directions. For example, an interviewer might; ask the
questions incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response; or 2) call at an inconvenient time. For
example, the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may resent the intrusion of the
phone call. The answers will reflect this attitude. In addition, a telephone survey is limited to those households with
a telephone or households that speak English.
Error Estimate: The sample size was selected to ensure that the survey response yields a statistically valid result
with a +/- three percent margin of error at the 95th percent confidence level.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the survey, EPA tracked the number of schools receiving the Tools for
Schools (TfS) guidance and estimated the population of the school to determine the number of students/staff
experiencing improved indoor air quality. With this survey, EPA queried a statistically representative sample of
schools, to estimate the number of schools that have actually adopted and implemented good IAQ management
practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
References: See the United States Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics,http://nces.ed.gov/. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-001) at
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools. There is no website specifically relating to the survey. Inquiries may be made
directly to the EPA Office of Indoor Environments.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Office Workers improved indoor air quality in their workplaces.
Performance Database: The performance database consists of two sources, requested copies of building indoor air
quality guidance documents, (e.g. Building Air Quality, I-Beam, and related guidance Mold Remediation in Schools
and Commercial Buildings) and training conducted through cooperative agreements or other government agencies
(e.g., General Services Administration (GSA)) using EPA's documents. In addition, EPA conducted a voluntary,
pilot survey of building owners and managers in 2001 to determine the use of indoor air quality (IAQ) management
practices in U.S. office buildings.
Data Source: The survey was developed by EPA and distributed by Building Owners and Managers Association
(BOMA). The survey's purpose and design received approval from the Office of Management and Budget. The
survey is not administered on an annual basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA developed a seven-page survey of multiple-choice questions that
requested each building owner or manager to supply information regarding: the size and uses of a selected building;
documentation of management practices employed in the building; how the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
systems are managed; how pollution sources are addressed; housekeeping and pest management practices;
remodeling and renovation activities; and responses to tenant complaints regarding IAQ. EPA's contractor
developed a project database to facilitate entry, storage and reporting statistics obtained from the survey. Based
upon random sampling of membership lists from BOMA, the International Facilities Managers Association (IFMA)
and buildings managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), the contractor generated a sampling frame.
The final sample size, (and survey recipient list) was 3,612 and we received 591 completed surveys. The survey
results identified both strengths and weaknesses in building management practices in U.S. office buildings.
QA/QC Procedures: The survey was focus group tested and peer-reviewed by IAQ professionals to ensure that
respondents would understand the questions and provide accurate responses. It was also designed by a statistician to
ensure reliability of the data collected. Each survey mailed was assigned a unique identifier to facilitate the tracking
of survey responses within the database. BOMA, EPA's cooperative partner, ensured accuracy and completeness of
submitted surveys by reviewing each submission prior to data entry. A double-entry protocol for all data entry was
implemented to ensure an accuracy rate of at least 99%; each survey form was entered into the database twice, after
which a computer program identified any variances. Two-percent of the records were randomly checked to ensure
that accuracy goals were met. BOMA was responsible for tracking survey responses, entering the survey responses
into the database, maintaining the data in a secure environment and providing quality assurance/quality control of all
survey activities.
1-36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
After the quality assurance checks on the data were performed, EPA's contractor aggregated the data analyses. EPA
and the contractor developed a method to score the responses for each item on the questionnaire and computed an
index of IAQ management practices. The quality of the scoring program results was assured by random inspection
and correction, if necessary. The IAQ indices were analyzed using analysis-of-variance techniques to identify
covariates of IAQ practices that could be used in considering future program initiatives.
Data Quality Review: BOMA had responsibility for the accuracy of data entered into the database. Quality
assurance safeguards were used in the data entry. BOMA, and EPA's contractor reviewed individual survey
responses and data for accuracy during the aggregation and analyses activities.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with basing estimates on requests for guidance documents and
training is the unknown factor of how many of the requests result in actions resulting in improved indoor air quality.
The survey provides a reference point on progress. The survey results are subject to the limitations inherent in
survey sampling. The response rate of 14% for the survey was low due to the timing of the survey administration
and subsequent events in September and October 2001.
Error Estimate: 4% precision at a 95% confidence level.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: There is no website specifically relating to this survey. Inquiries may be made directly to EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation, Indoor Environments Division.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA)
Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA), Section 306
Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization
Act (SARA) of 1986
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), section 6, Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and
Section 10
1-37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Protect the Ozone Layer
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and
slowly begun the slow process of recovery, and the risk to human health from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV)
radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Protect the Ozone Layer
Environmental Program & Management
Buildings & Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$18,145.2
$17,892.5
$164.4
$88.3
39.2
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$19,069.4
$18,802.0
$152.8
$114.6
36.1
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$21,813.7
$21,516.2
$164.7
$132.8
36.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$2,744.3
$2,714.2
$11.9
$18.2
0.6
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$5,994.8
$9,518.9
$2,631.5
$18,145.2
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$5,786.6
$11,000.0
$2,282.8
$19,069.4
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$5,839.6
$13,500.0
$2,474.1
$21,813.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$53.0
$2,500.0
$191.3
$2,744.3
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
In 2005 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP
MTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and
halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
In 2004 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP
MTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and
halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify restriction of domestic consumption
of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and restriction of domestic
exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
1-38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Domestic
HCFCs
Consumption of Class II
Domestic Exempted Production and
Import of Newly Produced Class I CFC s
and Halons
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
<9,906
<10,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
<9,906
<10,000
OOP MTs
OOP MTs
Baseline: 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 (OOP). 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.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs Restrict Domestic
Exempted Production and Import of Newly Produced Class I CFCs and Halons
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained by the Global Programs
Division (GPD). 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 I CFCs and halons is tracked by
monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations. Data are provided by U.S. companies
producing, importing, and exporting ODS. Monthly information on domestic production, imports, and exports from
the International Trade Commission is maintained in the ATS. 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/oar/caa/caa603.txt
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. In addition, the data are subject to an annual quality
assurance review, coordinated by 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. The GPD
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 facilities of producers, importers, and
exporters. 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. Data are required by the Clean Air Act.
1-39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: The GPD continues to explore an improved system whereby direct electronic
reporting would be possible.
References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on ODSs. See
http://www.unep.ch/ozone/montreal.shtml for additional information about the Montreal Protocol. See
http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund.
EFFICIENCY MEASURES/MEASUREMENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS
EPA continues to place a great emphasis on improving its performance measures. In addition to and
complementing the Agency's outcome-based environmental performance measures, some programs are developing
efficiency measures. Efficiency measures are structured as a ratio of key program inputs (e.g. time, dollars, FTE) to
program outputs or outcomes. They are intended to provide EPA programs with additional information that can be
used for sound decision-making and program management.
Below are EPA's proposed efficiency measures for selected programs.
Stratospheric Ozone: For every $50 invested by EPA in the domestic ODS phaseout program and the
Multilateral Fund, the US will avoid 1 skin cancer fatality related to UV radiation exposure. This outcome assumes
that the US and other Parties to the Montreal Protocol achieve planned phaseout targets, and that present funding
levels are continued.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA), Title I, Parts A and D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501 7515), Title V (42
U.S.C. 7661-7661f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q)
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6921-6926 and 6938) sections 3001-3006 and 3017
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
1-40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Radiation
Through 2008, working with partners, EPA will minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to
minimize impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Science & Technology
Building & Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$30,046.8
$19,881.9
$3,058.4
$6,284.3
$715.4
$106.6
168.1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$34,858.9
$21,060.8
$3,027.2
$9,797.7
$817.4
$155.8
185.0
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$34,718.0
$20,914.1
$3,207.1
$9,574.9
$868.7
$153.2
183.9
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($141.0)
($146.7)
$179.8
($222.8)
$51.3
(-$2.6)
-1.2
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$15,743.2
$4,128.8
$998.3
$9,176.5
$30,046.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$17,392.7
$4,081.2
$3,703.6
$9,681.4
$34,858.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$15,620.4
$4,849.9
$4,144.3
$10,103.4
$34,718.0
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($1,772.3)
$768.7
$440.7
$421.9
($141.0)
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Ensure WIPP Safety
In 2005 Certify that 40,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 120,000 curies)
shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to
EPA standards.
In 2004 Certify that 36,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 108,000 curies)
shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to
EPA standards.
In 2003 36,041 drums (55 gallon) of radioactive waste shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant were
permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
1-41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Number of 55-Gallon Drums
Radioactive Waste Disposed
According to EPA Standards
of
of
FY 2003
Actuals
36,041
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
36,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
40,000
Drums
Baseline: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM was opened in May 1999 to accept
radioactive transuranic waste. By the end of FY 2003, approximately 73,000 (cumulative) 55 gallon
drums will be safely disposed. In FY 2005, EPA expects that DOE will ship an additional 40,000 55-
gallon drums of waste. Through FY 2004, EPA expects that DOE will have shipped safely and
according to EPA standards, approximately 13% of the planned waste volume, based on disposal of
860,000 drums over the next 40 years. Number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual
basis is dependent on DOE priorities and funding. EPA volume estimates are based on projecting the
average shipment volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
In 2005 EPA will purchase 60 additional state of the art monitoring units and initiate deployment to sites
selected based on population and geographical coverage. All old sampling will be replaced and
population coverage will be expanded to 60%.
In 2004 EPA will purchase 60 state of the art radiation monitoring units thereby increasing EPA radiation
monitoring capacity and population coverage from 37% of the contiguous U.S. population in FY 2002
to 50% in FY 2004.
Performance Measures:
Purchase and Deploy State-of-the Art
Monitoring Units
Baseline: The current fixed monitoring system, part of the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring
System, was developed in the 1960s for the purpose of monitoring radioactive fallout from nuclear
weapons testing. The system currently consists of 52 old, low-tech air paniculate samplers which
provide coverage in cities which represent approximately 24% of the population. By 2005, EPA will
upgrade the old system by purchasing 120 state-of-the-art units which wil be strategically located to
cover approximatley 60% of the population. The current system's air samplers will be retired from
service due to age, although some may be retained for emergency use.
Homeland Security - Readiness & Response
In 2005 Verify that 50 percent of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members meet
scenario-based response criteria.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
60
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
60
Units
Purchased
Performance Measures:
Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet
scenario-based criteria
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
50
Percent
Baseline: Currently, EPA assesses RERT readiness based on the ability of the RERT to: (1) provide effective
field response, as defined today; (2) support coordination centers; and 3) provide analytical capabilities
throughout as needed to support a single small-to-medium scale incident. These evaluation criteria
will be reevaluated and revised in response to the Department of Homeland Security development of
critieria for the Nuclear Incident Response Team established under the Homeland Security Act of
2002, which includes EPA RERT assets.
1-42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units
Performance Data: Output Measure. Data from the near real-time gamma component of the Environmental
Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) will be stored in an internal EPA database at the National Air and
Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama. EPA monitors for radiation to provide
data for nuclear and radiological emergency response assessments; to provide data on ambient levels of radiation in
the environment for baseline and trend analysis; and to inform the general public and public officials.
Data Source: Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). A total of 60 near real-time
monitoring units will provide data to the database at NAREL.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Assuming that funding is secured during future years and the project
receives all necessary approvals, the existing air sampling equipment will be replaced with state-of-the art air
monitors that include near real-time gamma radiation detection capability. Addition of detectors and
communication systems will provide notification about significant radioactive contamination events to decision-
makers within hours
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow the Agency guidelines and be
consistent with a specific Quality Assurance Plan that is being developed for the project. All monitoring equipment
will be periodically calibrated with reliable standards and routinely checked for accuracy with onsite testing devices.
Laboratory analyses of air filters and other environmental media are closely controlled in compliance with the
NAREL Quality Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: 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: Data are limited in near real-time to gamma emitting radionuclide identification and
quantification. Radiation levels from gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so low as to be "undetectable" will be
significantly below health concerns that require immediate action. Lower levels of radioactive materials in the
samples will be measured through laboratory based analyses and data will be available within days after the sample
is received. Data will not be available to the general public or others, except relevant decision-makers, until verified
by trained personnel.
Error Estimate: The overall error in detection capability is estimated to be within 50% of the actual concentration
based on previous experience with similar measurement systems. An error analysis will be performed on the
prototype systems during the process of detector selection.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: New air samplers will maintain steady flow rates that are
measured during operation and corrected for varying environmental conditions. Addition of gamma spectrometric
detectors and computer-based multi-channel analyzers to the air samplers provide near real-time analyses of
radioactive content in particles captured by the filter. In addition to data collection, the onboard computer systems
can communicate results of analyses back to a central database and even identify abnormal conditions that might
require action. These improvements not only include higher quality data, but also will provide information
regarding contamination events to decision-makers within hours instead of days. The number and location of
monitoring sites will be improved to provide representative sampling for much more of the nation's population.
References: For a additional information about the continuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
http://www.epa.gov/narel/erams/aboutus.html#mission
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards.
1-43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Data: The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) database contains the
number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP. The WIPP is a DOE
facility located in southeastern New Mexico, 26 miles from Carlsbad. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed
by Congress in October 1992 and amended in September 1996. The act transferred the land occupied by the WIPP
to DOE and gave EPA regulatory responsibility for determining whether the facility complies with radioactive waste
disposal standards.
Data Source: Department of Energy
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE. Under EPA's
WIPP regulations (available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.htm. all DOE WIPP-
related data must be collected and maintained under a comprehensive quality assurance program meeting consensus
standards developed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (available on the Internet:
http://www.asme.org/codes/). EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems are
in place and functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator
facilities and placed in the DOE WIPP. Currently, there are five DOE waste generator facilities that are approved to
generate and ship waste: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Hanford
Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Savannah River Site.
Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste characterization
controls and quality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites. EPA conducts frequent independent
inspections and audits at these sites to verify continued compliance with radioactive waste disposal standards and to
determine if DOE is properly tracking the waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Since 1998, EPA
has completed over 60 inspections prior to shipment of waste to the WIPP facility. Once EPA gives its approval, the
number of drums shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual basis is dependent on DOE priorities and funding. EPA
volume estimates are based on projecting the average shipment volumes over 40 years with an initial start up.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly Supplement
http://www.wipp.ws/librarv/caolib.htnrfControlled contains information on the monthly volumes of waste that are
received at the DOE WIPP.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet scenario-based criteria.
Performance Data: To determine the effectiveness of RERT performance, an output measure has been developed
that scores RERT members on a scale of one (1) to 100 against scenario-based criteria. A baseline evaluation was
performed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, based on the effectiveness of the RERT in responses to actual incidents and a
major national exercise (TOPOFF2). RERT members were evaluated in their ability to: (1) provide effective field
response, (2) support coordination centers, and (3) provide analytical capabilities and throughput as needed to
support a single small-to-medium scale incident. Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline analysis was
measured at approximately 13 percent. In FY 2005, however, the evaluation criteria will need to be reevaluated and
revised in response to the changes enacted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Under this Act, the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) is required to develop evaluation criteria and test the effectiveness of the Nuclear
Incident Response Team (NIRT), which will include EPA RERT assets. Thus, the output measure tentatively
outlined above will be modified in cooperation with DHS to meet their needs.
1-44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Source: Beginning in FY 2005, EPA expects the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the data.
DHS is responsible for assuring that all Federal Emergency Response assets maintain an adequate level of readiness
(Homeland Security Act of 2002). EPA assumes they also will maintain a data system to evaluate and assess the
readiness of assets across the federal government. EPA will perform evaluations of its own assets and report results
under this measure, but must rely on the DHS data source for key information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: The expectations for performance of EPA's RERT are currently evolving. Under Section 501 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Department of State's (DOS) Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response will establish standards for EPA RERT assets as part of the new Nuclear Incident Response Team. DHS
will also evaluate the NIRT's performance against these new standards. These criteria have not yet been developed.
In addition, the requirements for the RERT (i.e., what is actually expected of RERT members during a response)
may also change. This uncertainty means that the current evaluation may not effectively reflect future criteria.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The Homeland Security Act of 2002
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA)
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
Energy Policy Act of 1992, PL. 102-486
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.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
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.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (Nunn-Lugar II)
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawl Act of 1978
Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act
1-45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An
additional 75 MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the
Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement.)
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Buildings & Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$99,836.4
$97,647.6
$750.0
$965.4
$473.5
251.3
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$106,936.5
$105,343.7
$0.0
$969.6
$623.2
244.1
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$108,389.3
$106,712.6
$0.0
$1,044.9
$631.8
244.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$1,452.9
$1,368.9
$0
$75.4
$8.6
0.5
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY2003
Actuals
$82,169.5
$1,018.2
$16,648.7
$99,836.4
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$91,289.6
$0.0
$15,646.9
$106,936.5
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$91,961.3
$0.0
$16,428.0
$108,389.3
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$671.7
$0.0
$781.2
$1,452.9
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2005 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 90 MMTCE per
year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other
organizations.
In 2004 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 81 MMTCE per
year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other
organizations.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in mid-2004 to verify that Greenhouse gas emissions will
be reduced from projected levels by approximately 72.2 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships
with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
1-46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
Data Lag
Data Lag
Data Lag
Data Lag
Data Lag
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
81.0
21.4
7.3
18.1
29.6
2.6
2.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
90.2
23.8
8
19.1
34.4
2.9
2.0
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
Performance Measures:
Annual Greenhouse Gas Reductions - All
EPA Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
Buildings Sector Programs (ENERGY
STAR)
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
Industrial Efficiency/Waste Management
Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
Industrial Methane Outreach Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
Industrial HFC/PFC Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
Transportation Programs
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from EPA's
State and Local Programs
Baseline: 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
(www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html), which provides a discussion of differences
in assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy
efficiency programs are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and
projections using information from partners and other sources. EPA continues to develop annual
inventories as well as update methodologies as new information becomes available.
Reduce Energy Consumption
In 2005 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 120 billion kilowatt hours,
contributing to over $8.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
In 2004 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 110 billion kilowatt hours,
contributing to over $7.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in late 2004 to verify the reduction in energy consumption
from projected levels by more than 95 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over $6.5 billion in
energy savings to consumers and businesses.
Performance Measures:
Annual Energy Savings
Programs
All EPA
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
110
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
120
Billion
kWh
Baseline: 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.
1-47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
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
(www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html), which provides a discussion of differences in
assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency programs
are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and projections using information
from partners and other sources. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as update methodologies as
new information becomes available.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System.
Data Source: Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes 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. EPA develops the carbon
and non-CO2 emissions baselines and projections using information from partners and other sources. 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.
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., million 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.
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.
Data Quality Review: The Administration evaluates its climate programs using an interagency approach. The
second such interagency evaluation included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy,
Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. 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 voluntary programs, errors
in the performance data could be introduced through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering
analyses, and econometric analyses.
1-48
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
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
Change for the Better: Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 2002
Annual Report.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Annual Energy Savings
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System
Data Source: 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.
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., 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 energy
reductions.
Energy bill savings are calculated as the product of the kWh of energy saved and the cost of electricity for the
affected market segment (residential, commercial, or industrial) taken from the Energy Information Administration's
(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2002 and Annual Energy Review 2000 for each year in the analysis (1993-2012).
Energy bill savings also include revenue from the sale of methane and/or the sale of electricity made from captured
methane. The net present value (NPV) of these savings was calculated using a 4-percent discount rate and a 2001
perspective.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to
evaluate energy savings from its voluntary programs.
Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs through
interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation 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: The voluntary nature of programs may affect reporting. In addition, errors in the performance
data could be introduced through uncertainties in engineering analyses and econometric analyses.
Error Estimate: Although EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to
evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could be introduced through
uncertainties in engineering analyses and econometric analyses.
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.
1-49
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
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 voluntary
programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division Annual Report. The most recent version
is Change for the Better: Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection Partnerships Division
2002 Annual Report.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104, and 108
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. - Section 104
Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 370la
Global Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102
Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6605
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 8001
1-50
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Enhance Science and Research
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Enhance Science and Research
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Buildings and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$132,577.0
$16,904.8
$113,313.3
$1715.0
$643.9
385.2
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$128,016.6
$18,216.5
$107,353.4
$1,710.5
$736.2
371.2
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$130,863.6
$18,723.8
$109,544.0
$1,840.5
$755.3
372.4
FY2005Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$2,847.1
$507.4
$2,190.6
$130.0
$19.1
1.1
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Climate Protection Program
Radiation: Protection
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Troposphere Ozone
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$19,588.0
$1,367.0
$14,257.2
$64,437.9
$4,804.2
$4,042.7
$3,810.2
$408.0
$402.0
$19,459.8
$132,577.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$17,320.3
$1,472.1
$15,700.9
$63,620.6
$4,942.3
$3,991.2
$0.0
$380.7
$403.1
$20,185.4
$128,016.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$17,458.9
$1,361.5
$17,638.9
$63,690.8
$4,900.9
$3,991.2
$0.0
$482.4
$405.4
$20,933.6
$130,863.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$138.6
($110.6)
$1,938.0
$70.2
($41.4)
$0.0
$0.0
$101.7
$2.3
$748.3
$2,847.1
1-51
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Participate Matter Research
Long-term Outcome Measusre
Annual Measure
Efficiency Measure
Measure under development.
Measure under development.
Measure under development.
Clean Automotive Technology
In 2005 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet
size, performance, durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery
vehicle applications with an average fuel economy improvement of 30% over the baseline.
In 2004 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet
size, performance, durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery
vehicle applications with an average fuel economy improvement of 25% over the baseline.
Performance Measures:
Fuel Economy of EPA-Developed SUV
Hybrid Vehicle over EPA Driving Cycles
Tested _ _ MpG
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
26.3
Baseline:
Research
The average fuel economy of all SUVs sold in the US in 2001 is 20.2 mpg. Values for 2002, 2003,
and 2004 represent 15%, 20%, and 25% improvements over this baseline, respectively. The long-term
target is to demonstrate a practical and affordable powertrain that is 30% more efficient by 2005, and
100% more efficient by 2010.
PM Measurement Research
In 2005 Deliver and transfer improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from sources
so that, by 2006, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and the states have the necessary new data and
tools to predict, measure, and reduce ambient PM and PM emissions to attain the existing PM National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the protection of public health.
Performance Measures:
Improved receptor models and data on
chemical compounds emitted from sources
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
09/30/05
models/
data
Baseline: Following designation of non-attainment areas for the Paniculate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards in 2004 and 2005, states will need to immediately begin developing State Implementation
Plans (SIPs). SIPs incorporate source emission reduction rules that once implemented lead to cleaner
air and standards attainment. They are due to EPA three years after designation. SIP development is
predicated on the availability of recent and credible information on source emission characteristics and
receptor-oriented models that can identify sources contributing to locally observed PM concentrations
based on their chemical signatures. A next update (FY 2005) of these constantly improving models
and the latest in source signatures will be produced to help states with their SIPs as part of a weight of
evidence approach that use these and chemical transport modeling to tag specific sources with
reduction targets.
1-52
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of
EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with
OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. These evaluations will include an
examination of a program's design to determine the appropriateness of a program's short-,
intermediate-, and long-term goals and its strategy for attaining these. Reviewers will also
qualitatively determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term
commitments for research. Recommendations and results from these reviews will improve the design
and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Fuel Economy of EPA-Developed SUV Hybrid Vehicle over EPA Driving
Cycles Tested
Performance Database: Fuel economy test data for both urban and highway test cycles under the EPA Federal
Test Procedure for passenger cars.
Data Source: EPA fuel economy tests performed at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL),
Ann Arbor, Michigan
QA/QC Procedures: EPA fuel economy tests are performed in accordance with the EPA Federal Test Procedure
and all applicable QA/QC procedures. Available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a national and international facility for fuel
economy and emissions testing. NVFEL is also the reference point for private industry.
Data Limitations: Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel economy testing is a well established and precise
exercise with extremely low test to test variability (well less than 5%). Additional information is available on the
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testdata.html One challenge relates to fuel economy testing of hybrid vehicles
(i.e., more than one source of onboard power), which is more complex than testing of conventional vehicles. EPA
has not yet published formal regulations to cover hybrid vehicles. However, relevant information is available on the
Internet: http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/hev test/procedures.shtml
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is using solid engineering judgment and consultations with other expert
organizations (including major auto companies) to develop internal procedures for testing hybrid vehicles.
References: See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testproc.htm for additional information about testing and measuring
emissions at the NVFEL.
EFFICIENCY MEASURES\MEASUREMENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS
As a measure of efficiency, the Agency will track the time it takes to process paniculate matter research
grant proposals from RFA closure to submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division. The Agency will also track
the number of peer-reviewed paniculate matter research journal articles produced per scientific/engineering FTE.
1-53
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act Amendments
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
Energy Policy Act of 1992
Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a
Global Climate Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103
National Climate Program Act (1997)
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6605
Safe Drinking Water Act
U.S. Global Change Research Program Act of 1990
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act
1-54
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
STRATEGIC GOAL: 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.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Over the 30 years since enactment of the
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts (CWA
and SDWA), government, citizens, and the private
sector have worked together to make dramatic
progress in improving the quality of surface waters
and drinking water.
Thirty years ago, much of the nation's tap
water had either very limited treatment (usually
disinfection) or no treatment at all. About two-thirds
of the surface waters assessed by states were not
attaining basic water quality goals and were
considered polluted.1 Some of the Nation's waters
were open sewers posing health risks and many water
bodies were so polluted that traditional uses, such as
swimming, fishing, and recreation, were impossible.
Today, drinking water systems monitor and
treat water to assure compliance with drinking water
standards covering a wide range of contaminants. In
addition, we now protect sources of drinking water
through activities such as regulating injection of
wastes to ground waters. A massive investment of
federal, state, and local funds resulted in a new
generation of wastewater treatment facilities able to
provide "secondary" treatment or better. Over 50
categories of industry now comply with nationally
consistent discharge regulations. In addition,
sustained efforts to implement "best management
practices" have helped reduce runoff of pollutants
from diffuse or "nonpoint" sources.
Cleaner, safer water has renewed
recreational, ecological, and economic interests in
communities across the nation. The recreation,
tourism, and travel industry is one of the largest
employers in the nation, and a significant portion of
recreational spending comes from swimming,
boating, sport fishing, and hunting.2 Each year, more
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and
Protecting America's Water. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
2 Travel Industry Association of America. Tourism for
America, 11th Edition. Washington, DC: Travel Industry of
America.
than 180 million people visit the shore for
recreation.3 In 2001, sportspersons spent a total of
$70 billion- $35.6 billion on fishing, $20.6 billion on
hunting, and $13.8 million on items used for both
hunting and fishing. Wildlife watchers spent an
additional $38.4 billion on their activities around the
home and on trips away from home.4 The
commercial fishing industry, which also requires
clean water and healthy wetlands, contributed $28.6
billion to the economy in 2001.5 The Cuyahoga
River, which once caught fire, is now busy with boats
and harbor businesses that generate substantial
revenue for the City of Cleveland. The Willamette
River in Oregon has been restored to provide
swimming, fishing, and water sports. Even Lake
Erie, once infamous for its dead fish, now supports a
$600 million per year fishing industry.6
Much of the dramatic progress in improving
the nation's water quality over the past 30 years is
directly attributable to our improvements in water
infrastructure. Entering the 21st century, however,
the job is far from over. Despite the gains made
since the passage of the CWA and the SDWA,
approximately 40% of the nation's waters assessed
by states still do not meet basic water quality
standards.7 Remaining water quality problems are
not easily remedied: they come not just from
discharge from pipes, but from diffuse sources -
farming and forestry, construction sites, urban streets,
automobiles, atmospheric deposition, even suburban
homes and yards. They are no longer just chemical
3 Pew Oceans Commission. 2002. America's Living Oceans
Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, VA: Pew
Oceans Commission.
4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
5 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Fisheries of the
U.S. 2001. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
6 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and
Protecting America's Water. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
7 303(d) information comes from: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. States' Listing of Impaired Waters as
Required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Washington,
DC. Available online at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control.
II-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
in nature. There are biological threats to our nation's
waters that we must address as well if we are to truly
achieve the stated goal of the CWA to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters."
States have identified more than 25,000
waterways as being impaired and have listed a group
of principal causes of impairment to the waterways.8
One of these impairments is pesticides. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has synthesized
contaminant and nutrient data from its 1992-1998
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
program. This assessment found that detectable
concentrations of pesticides are widespread in urban,
agricultural and mixed-use area streams.
Interestingly, streams in urban areas generally have
higher concentrations of insecticides than streams in
agricultural areas, however incidences are generally
lower. Recent trends toward low-density
development (sprawl) will increase waterways'
overall exposure to pesticides because it leaves fewer
pristine natural areas and fewer trees and exposes
more land to pesticides.
Reductions of pesticide concentrations in
streams and groundwater require management
strategies that focus on reducing chemical use. This
means local and regional management strategies are
needed to account for geographic patterns in
chemical use and natural factors. One of the primary
concerns for water quality in the U.S. is the role of
small, dispersed sources of non-point source
pollution. The major factors that contribute to the
increasing levels of pesticides found in streams and
groundwater include the application pattern of
pesticides, the soil condition and the amount of
rainfall or irrigation, which can increase pesticide
run-off into streams and rivers.
Communities are challenged to find the
fiscal resources to sustain the gains of the past 30
years, while providing clean and safe water for the
future. They must find ways to replace aging
infrastructure, to meet growing infrastructure
demands fueled by population growth, and to secure
their water and wastewater infrastructure against
threats. To further our progress toward clean waters
and safer drinking water, we must both maintain our
commitment to the core measures we have already
established and look for new ways to improve water
quality and protect human health.
8 303(d) information comes from: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. States' Listing of Impaired Waters as
Required by Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Washington,
DC. Available online at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control.
MEANS AND STRATEGY
EPA will focus on four key strategies to
accelerate progress toward achieving the Nation's
clean and safe water goals. To better address the
complexity of the remaining water quality challenges,
EPA will promote local watershed approaches to
achieving the best and most cost effective solutions
to local and regional water problems. To protect and
build on the gains of the past, EPA will focus on its
core water programs. To maximize the impact of
each dollar, EPA will continue to strengthen our vital
partnerships with States, Tribes, local governments,
and other parties that are also working toward the
common goal of improving the Nation's waters. To
leverage progress through innovation, EPA will
promote water quality trading, water efficiency, and
other market based approaches.
To achieve the Nation's clean and safe water
goals, EPA will operate under an overarching
watershed approach in carrying out its statutory
authorities under both the SDWA Amendments of
1996 and the CWA. EPA is committed to helping
local governments meet the challenges of water
management in the 21st century in fiscally responsible
and sustainable ways. We want to maintain the
improvements in water quality, while enabling
communities to grow and prosper.
EPA's core water programs are the
fundamental underpinning for protecting and building
on the gains of the past. This approach calls for
setting watershed goals, assessing conditions,
determining sources of concern, addressing them
using regulatory and voluntary tools, and then re-
evaluating and adapting plans as new information
becomes available. By focusing and integrating the
work of EPA with sister agencies, States, Tribes,
local governments, industry, and nonprofit
organizations in watersheds, we are able to pool
information, resources, and authorities and focus our
collective energies on our common environmental
objectives. In watersheds, we can better understand
the cumulative impact of activities, determine the
most critical problems, better allocate limited
financial and human resources, engage stakeholders,
win public support, and make real improvements in
the environment.
Maintaining high environmental standards
and sustaining a healthy economy requires that we
work with States, Tribes, local governments, and
other partners to optimize costs and conserve our
natural resources. Innovative programs like water
quality trading are based on a broad environmental
perspective, looking at entire watersheds. Trading
II-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
can capitalize on economies of scale and control cost
differentials among and between sources. Trading is
a valuable tool to more cost-effectively implement
TMDLs, and to enable communities to grow and
prosper while maintaining their commitment to water
quality. Trading can also be an appropriate
mechanism in a pre-TMDL context.
As a result of mounting evidence that
pesticide use can lead to contamination of
groundwater, the Agency has developed a
groundwater strategy. This strategy is designed to
protect our groundwater resources from pesticide
contamination. The Agency is working with the
States and Tribes to implement local aspects of the
strategy which includes providing assistance in the
development of Pesticide Management Plans for both
generic aspects of pesticide use, as well as more
specific plans for a particular pesticide. The plans
provide a roadmap to managing pesticides through
preventive and corrective measures. In addition,
EPA has an extensive scientific review process for
data on new pesticides prior to granting registration,
and on older pesticides under the reregistration
program. One of the assessment areas for pesticides
is the impact on ecosystems, including the likelihood
of the chemical or product to leach into groundwater,
or to persist in surface water after it leaves the field
as runoff. Restrictions on use of the pesticide can be
added to the registration (or reregistration), if
warranted.
Research
EPA's water research program supports the
Agency's Clean and Safe Water Goal by providing
the scientific basis essential for protecting human
health and the environment. Implementation of the
research provisions in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) amendments and the Clean Water Act
will provide improved tools (e.g., methods, models,
risk assessments, management strategies, and new
data) to better evaluate the risks posed by chemical
and microbial contaminants that persist in the
environment and threaten wildlife and, potentially,
human health.
The drinking water research program will
focus on filling key data gaps and developing
analytical detection methods for measuring the
occurrence of chemical and microbial contaminants
on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and
developing and evaluating cost-effective treatment
technologies for removing pathogens from water
supplies while minimizing disinfection by-product
(DBF) formation. The water quality research
program will provide approaches and methods the
Agency and its partners need to develop and apply
criteria to support designated uses, tools to diagnose
and assess impairment in aquatic systems, and tools
to restore and protect aquatic systems. Water quality
research will address a wide spectrum of aquatic
ecosystem stressors, with particular attention
accorded to stressors that the Agency most often cites
as causing water body impairment, including
pathogens/indicators of fecal contamination,
nutrients, and suspended and bedded sediments.
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure a
high-quality water research program at EPA. EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independently
chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
committee, meets annually to conduct an in-depth
review and analysis of EPA's Science and
Technology account. The SAB provides its findings
to the House Science Committee and sends a written
report on the findings to EPA's Administrator after
every annual review. EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) provides counsel to the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) on the operation of ORD's
research program. Also, under the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) program all research
projects are selected for funding through a rigorous
competitive external peer review process designed to
ensure that only the highest quality efforts receive
funding support. EPA's scientific and technical work
products must also undergo either internal or external
peer review, with major or significant products
requiring external peer review. The Agency's Peer
Review Handbook (2nd Edition) codifies procedures
and guidance for conducting peer review.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND FY 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Protect Human Health
• In 2005 93% of the population served by
community water systems will receive
drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards
through effective treatment and source water
protection.
• In 2005 94% of the population served by
community water systems will receive
drinking water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to
comply as of December 2001.
• In 2005 75% of the population served by
community water systems will receive
drinking water that meets health-based
II-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
standards with a compliance date of January
2002 or later.
In 2005 94% of community water systems
will provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with which systems
need to comply as of December 2001.
In 2005 75% of community water systems
will provide drinking water that meets
health-based standards with a compliance
date of January 2002 or later.
In 2005 90% of the population served by
community water systems in Indian country
will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water
standards.
In 2005 20% of source water areas for
community water systems will achieve
minimized risk to public health.
In 2005 80% of the shellfish growing acres
monitored by states are approved or
conditionally approved for use.
In 2005 At least 1% of the water miles/acres
identified by states or tribes as having a fish
consumption advisory in 2002 will have
improved water and sediment quality so that
increased consumption of fish and shellfish
is allowed.
In 2005 Coastal and Great Lakes beaches
monitored by State beach safety programs
will be open and safe for swimming in over
94% of the days of the beach season.
In 2005 Restore water quality to allow
swimming in not less than 2% of the stream
miles and lake acres identified by tates in
2000 as having water quality unsafe for
swimming.
Protect Water Quality
In 2005 500 of the Nation's watersheds have
water quality standards met in at least 80%
of the assessed water segments.
In 2005 Water quality standards are fully
attained in over 25% of miles/acres of
waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of
restoring 2% of these waters - identified in
2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.
• In 2005 Improve ratings reported on the
national "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report for:
coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 point;
contamination of sediments in coastal waters
by at least 0.1 point; benthic quality by at
least 0.1 point; & eutrophic condition by at
least 0.1 point
• In 2005 Scores for overall aquatic system
health of coastal waters nationally, and in
each coastal region, is improved on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1
point
• In 2005 In coordination with other federal
partners reduce, by 11%, households on
tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation.
• In 2005 Water quality in Indian country will
be improved at not less than 35 monitoring
stations in tribal waters for which baseline
data are available (i.e., show at least a 10%
improvement for each of four key
parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms.)
Enhance Science and Research
• In 2005 By 2005, provide methods for
developing water quality criteria so that, by
2008, approaches and methods are available
to States and Tribes for their use in
developing and applying criteria for habitat
alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded
sediments, pathogens and toxic chemicals
that will support designated uses for aquatic
ecosystems and increase the scientific basis
for listing and delisting impaired water
bodies under Section 303 (d) of the Clean
Water Act.
HIGHLIGHTS
Surface Water Protection
Water Quality Monitoring: EPA's fiscal
year 2005 request will be the first step toward solving
the well-documented shortcomings of the Nation's
water quality monitoring. The most cost-efficient,
practical means of making the most of scarce
resources is information-based management that uses
tools such as prevention, source water protection,
watershed trading, and permitting on watershed basis.
Monitoring is the foundation for information-based
environmental management. It is imperative that we
II-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
close data and information gaps as quickly as
possible: they lead to market and regulatory failures,
thwart our ability to document progress, and limit our
ability to effectively target limited resources.
Without adequate monitoring data, the managers of
water programs cannot inform the public about the
condition of the Nation's waters; make wise
management decisions; demonstrate the success or
failure of those programs; and verify that resources
are being used cost-effectively. Federal, State, and
local monitoring data are essential for States to carry
out their responsibilities for Clean Water Act
requirements. Strengthening our monitoring program
for both surface and ground water will allow for
special emphasis on drinking water sources to
support expeditious actions to protect or clean up
these critical resources.
High quality, current monitoring data is
critical for states and others to: make watershed-
based decisions, target water quality criteria
development, develop necessary standards and total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and accurately and
consistently portray conditions and trends. To
support these efforts, the President's Budget proposes
$20 million to implement improved state monitoring
efforts that will:
• Describe the condition of aquatic resources
at multiple scales using scientifically
defensible methods that are statistically
valid and compatible;
• Apply predictive tools to target waters that
need more intensive monitoring;
• Implement data management systems to
facilitate exchange and use of data of
documented quality;
• Determine site-specific water quality
impacts, appropriate protection levels and
cost-effective management actions;
• Monitor performance to determine
effectiveness of management actions and
support adaptive management, if needed;
and
• Utilize monitoring councils/partnerships to
improve collaboration among entities
collection, analysis, and use of monitoring
data and information.
This approach will result in social costs
savings by maximizing the efficiency of monitoring
and assessment resources and, more importantly, by
ensuring that resources invested in environmental
protection activities are directed most efficiently and
are achieving performance objectives.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
and Storm Water: As evidenced by recent newspaper
articles, withdrawal petitions, and the permit backlog,
some States are struggling with implementation of
their NPDES permitting programs. In addition, the
universe of facilities is increasing due to new
program requirements to permit concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) and additional sources
of storm water. Without timely issuance of high
quality permits, necessary improvements in water
quality will be delayed. To help States with this
workload, we are requesting an increase of $5 million
for Section 106 Grants. This increase would be used
by States to support implementation of NPDES
CAFO programs, which should result in pollutant
reductions of over 2 billion pounds annually,9 and to
support State issuance of storm water permits,
resulting in long term annual reductions of
approximately 100 billion pounds of sediment.10
Water Quality Trading: Water quality
trading is a watershed approach based on voluntary
partnerships at the local level. It capitalizes on
economies of scale and control cost differences
among sources, by allowing one source to meet its
regulatory obligation by using pollutant reductions
created by another source that has lower pollution
control costs. Trading provides incentives for
voluntary pollutant reductions, especially from
sources that are not regulated. It encourages early
reductions and more cost effective programs for
restoring impaired waters. Trading also provides
incentives for innovative solutions to complex and
diverse water quality problems across the nation.
A current example of a successful trading
effort between point sources can be found on Long
Island Sound, where nitrogen trading among publicly
owned treatment works in Connecticut is expected to
save over $200 million in control costs. A March
2003, report by the World Resources Institute, states
that market mechanisms such as nutrient trading
provide the greatest overall environmental benefits
and a cost-effective strategy for reducing the
Mississippi River Basin's contribution to the Dead
Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The report highlights
9 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water. (January 2001). Development Document for the
Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. (EPA-821-
R-01-003). Washington, D.C. [On-line] Available:
http://epa.gov/waterscience/guide/
10 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. "Economic Analysis of the
Final Phase II Storm Water Rule," EPA 833-R-99-002,
October 1999.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. "Construction and
Development Effluent Guideline Proposed Rule," Federal
RegisterNotice (June 24, 2002). Accessed December 29,
2003. Available on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/rule.ht
ml
II-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
the fact that trading provides a real opportunity for
farmers to play a role in reducing nutrient pollution.11
In FY 2005, we plan to redirect $4 million
for this effort, to be set-aside within the Targeted
Watershed Grants.
Water Efficiency: At the end of 2002,
nearly half the continental U.S. was in drought.12 In
addition to reduced rainfall, most of our water
systems also face a growing population and a
growing economy. In the future, our waters are
going to be even more stretched across competing
demands. The Agency is committed to helping States
and local governments address a multi-billion dollar
gap between water and wastewater infrastructure
needs and available capital financing over the next 20
years.
One way to reduce national water and
wastewater infrastructure needs is by reducing water
demand and wastewater flows, allowing for deferral
or downsizing of capital projects. In addition to
reduced infrastructure needs, less water demand may
result in many environmental benefits including
maintaining stream flows, protecting aquatic habitats,
avoiding overdrawn aquifers, conserving sources of
supply, and mitigating drought effects. In
anticipation of these benefits, we are proposing to
develop and implement a water efficiency market
enhancement program that would promote
recognition of water-efficient products based on the
highly successful Energy Star Program. The Budget
includes nearly $ 1 million for this new program.
Surface Water Protection & Drinking Water
Programs
Sustainable Infrastructure: Closing the
infrastructure gap requires actions and innovations to
reduce the demand for infrastructure, including better
management, conservation (or smart water use), and
intergovernmental cooperation through the watershed
approach.
The touchstone of a long-term strategy to
manage and maintain the Nation's infrastructure is
fiscal sustainability. An important component of this
strategy is promoting sustainable water and
wastewater treatment systems. This includes
ensuring the technical, financial, and managerial
capacity of water and wastewater systems; helping
11 Greenhalgh, Suzie and Amanda Sauer. 2003.
"Awakening the 'Dead Zone': An Investment for
Agriculture, Water Quality, and Climate Change." World
Resources Institute.
12 The Drought Monitor; National Drought Mitigation
Center; Website: www.drought.unl.edu/dm/about.html
service providers avoid future gaps and expanding
watershed approaches that engage stakeholders in
broad-based action-oriented partnerships to identify
efficient and effective local infrastructure solutions
by adopting sustainable management systems to
improve efficiency and economies of scale; and
reducing the average cost of service. Through a $2.5
million sustainable infrastructure initiative, we will
work in partnership with States, the utility industry,
and other stakeholders to enhance the operating
efficiencies of water and wastewater systems. These
efficiencies can help systems make the infrastructure
investments needed to meet growing consumer
demand, and help to sustain the human health and
environmental gains we have achieved over the past
three decades.
In FY 2005, the Agency will continue to
coordinate with States and Tribes providing guidance
and assistance in the development of generic and
specific Pesticide Management Plans in order to
protect our ground water resources. EPA will
coordinate pesticide water issues and assist our
partners in identifying and implementing effective
ground water protection programs through these
plans. The Agency will continue to support efforts
on identifying the adverse effects of pesticides in
ground and surface water at the State, Tribal and
Regional levels. Additionally, we will continue to
assist States and Tribes in identifying, developing
and implementing measures to prevent or reduce
water contamination. Key to this effort will be
tailoring preventive and recovery measures to
localities and specific pesticides.
Research
In FY 2005, EPA's drinking water research
program will continue to conduct research to reduce
the uncertainties of risk associated with exposure to
microbial contaminants in drinking water and
improve analytical methods to control risks posed by
drinking water contamination. The drinking water
research program will continue to focus on chemical
and microbial contaminants on current and future
CCLs. Significant data gaps still exist on the
occurrence of harmful microbes in source and
distribution system water, linkages between water
exposure and infection, and the effectiveness of
candidate treatment technologies to remove and
inactivate these contaminants. Efforts will also
continue to support arsenic-specific research and
development of more cost-effective treatment
technologies for the removal of arsenic from small
community drinking water systems.
EPA is working to develop biological and
landscape indicators of ecosystem condition, sources
II-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
of impairment, stressor response/fate and transport
models, and options for managing stressors and their
sources. Through the development of a framework
for diagnosing adverse effects of chemical pollutants
in surface waters, EPA will be able to evaluate the
risks posed by chemicals that persist in the
environment and accumulate in the food chain,
threatening wildlife and potentially human health.
The Agency will also develop and evaluate more
cost-effective technologies and approaches for
managing sediments, and evaluate management
options for watershed restoration of TMDLs for other
significant stressors (e.g., nutrients, pathogens and
toxic compounds). Finally, research to address
uncertainties associated with determining and
reducing the risks to human health of the production
and application of treated wastewater sludge
(biosolids) to land for use as fertilizers and soil
conditioners is emerging as an area of renewed
importance for the Agency.
Another area of research will focus on
growing evidence of the risk of infectious diseases
resulting from exposure to microbes in recreational
waters. Exposure to these diseases is of particular
concern after major rainfall events that cause
discharges from both point and non-point sources.
These events may pose risks to human and ecological
health through the uncontrolled release of pathogenic
bacteria, protozoans, and viruses, as well as a number
of potentially toxic, bioaccumulative contaminants.
EPA will develop and validate effective watershed
management strategies and tools for controlling wet
weather flows (WWFs), which will enable EPA to
provide states with consistent monitoring methods,
standardized indicators of contamination, and
standardized definitions of what constitutes a risk to
public health.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
EPA's strategies for achieving clean and
safe water depend on substantial contributions and
investments by many public and private entities.
States are primary partners in
implementation of both clean water and safe drinking
water programs. Many states, however, are facing
budget problems and even deficits. EPA recognizes
that state budget shortfalls are an external factor that
may limit progress toward clean and safe water goals.
Consistent with the federal government's
unique trust responsibility to federally recognized
tribes, EPA implements programs in Indian country,
helps build tribal capacity to administer clean and
safe water programs, and works with authorized
tribes as co-regulators. Unlike states, many tribes are
still developing programs to administer clean and
safe water programs.
Local governments play a critical role in
implementing clean and safe water programs, and the
continued participation of local government in these
programs is critical to cleaner, safer water.
Municipalities and other local entities have proven to
be strong partners with states and the federal
government in the financing of wastewater treatment
and drinking water systems, and continued
partnership in financing these systems is essential to
meeting water goals. Municipalities are taking on
additional responsibilities for addressing storm water
and combined sewer overflows and they are adopting
sustainable management practices to extend the
useful lives of their wastewater infrastructure.
Approximately 78 percent of wastewater treatment
plants are operated by small communities, thousands
of which have had past operational difficulties.13
Continued assistance to these small treatment plants,
through the Wastewater Operator Training Program,
is important to keeping the nation's waters clean. In
the case of the drinking water program, effective
local management of drinking water systems,
including protection of source waters, is essential to
maintaining high rates of compliance with drinking
water standards. Ninety-five percent of the 160,000
or more public water systems responsible for meeting
drinking water safety standards are small systems that
face challenges in sustaining their capacity to provide
safe drinking water.14 Strong partnerships with local
governments are critical to achieving clean and safe
water goals.
Several key components of the national
water program, including nonpoint source control,
source water protection, and watershed management,
as well as the core water quality and drinking water
standards, monitoring, TMDLs and NPDES
permitting programs require broad partnerships
among many federal, state, and local agencies. Over
the next several years, building partnerships,
particularly with the agricultural community (such as
USDA, state agricultural agencies, and local
conservation districts) is a top priority for meeting
clean water goals. We must continue to provide EPA
water quality data and work with USDA to help
target runoff control programs' resources.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance; Permit
Compliance System; Web-site:
www.epa.gov/oeca/planning/data/water/pcssys.html
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html
II-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
States lead the effort in water quality
monitoring. However, EPA relies on many other
agencies to provide monitoring data to measure
progress toward its goal of clean and safe water, such
as the U.S Geological Survey, which maintains water
monitoring stations throughout the nation, and
NOAA, which provides information on coastal
waters. EPA relies on the continued collection of
data by these agencies.
Additionally, all of the EPA's coastal and
oceans activities are carried out in partnership with
other federal agencies, and, in some cases,
international, state, local and private entities as well.
EPA relies on its work with the Department of
Defense, Coast Guard, Alaska and other states, and a
number of cruise ship and environmental and non-
governmental organizations regarding regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches to managing wastewater
discharges from vessels. Meeting ocean and coastal
goals will also depend on the extent to which the
growth in coastal areas is directed in ways that
minimize effects on water quality.
West Nile Virus cases increased
dramatically in 2002, spreading across 38 states and
the District of Columbia. In areas with new West
Nile virus detections, EPA regional offices have
reported heightened concern about the pesticides
used for mosquito control and the adverse affect it
might have in contaminating groundwater. Pesticides
are applied to areas where groundwater is prevalent
due to the fact that mosquitoes need stagnant or
standing water to lay their eggs. The possibility of the
West Nile Virus expanding into new areas of the
United States in the future will require the application
of more pesticides onto the new breeding areas.
II-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Resource Summary
(Dollars in thousands)
Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$3,725,201.9
$1,259,787.6
$2,346,144.8
$119,269.5
2,941.4
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$2,959,731.8
$1,192,187.1
$1,647,043.1
$120,501.6
3,053.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,936,968.6
$1,170,339.6
$1,645,669.9
$120,959.1
3,041.4
FY 2005 Req.
V.
FY 2004 Pres
Bud
($22,763.3)
($21,847.5)
($1,373.3)
$457.5
-12.3
II-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: 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.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Protect Human Health
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building & Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$1,259,787.6
$159,996.8
$18,362.0
$1,361.4
$1,085,448.9
$6,871.9
859.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,192,187.1
$161,414.6
$27,926.9
$1,480.2
$1,008,640.4
$7,701.4
916.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,170,339.6
$164,157..!
$6,709.8
$1,595.3
$1,004,412.2
$7,594.4
910.9
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($21,847.5)
$2,742.5
($21,217.1)
$115.1
($4,228.2)
($107.0)
-5.8
11-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Children and other Sensitive
Populations
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Underground
Injection Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
Pesticides: Field Programs
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Congressionally Mandated Projects
International Capacity Building
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$246.6
$92,694.2
$10,465.7
$4,672.6
$7,473.3
$3,197.3
$86,119.7
$866,607.7
$0.0
$2,001.2
$0.0
$111,719.6
$3,419.4
$4,508.5
$14,186.4
$52,475.4
$1,259,787.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$135.0
$105,100.0
$11,000.0
$4,564.0
$10,000.0
$3,689.5
$99,085.5
$850,000.0
$8,000.0
$2,510.8
$0.0
$0.0
$1,611.2
$5,000.0
$27,389.1
$64,102.0
$1,192,187.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$77.2
$105,100.0
$11,000.0
$4,433.0
$10,000.0
$3,237.6
$100,947.6
$850,000.0
$4,000.0
$2,482.7
$750.0
$0.0
$2,181.0
$5,000.0
$6,125.8
$65,004.7
$1,170,339.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($57.8)
$0.0
$0.0
($131.0)
$0.0
($451.9)
$1,862.1
$0.0
($4,000.0)
($28.1)
$750.0
$0.0
$569.8
$0.0
($21,263.3)
$902.7
($21,847.5)
11-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
GOAL: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Safe Drinking Water
In 2005 93% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water
protection.
In 2005 94% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets
health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
In 2005 75% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets
health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
In 2005 94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with
which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
In 2005 75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with a
compliance date of January 2002 or later.
In 2005 90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will receive drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
In 2004 85 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water meeting
health-based standards promulgated in or after 1998.
In 2004 92% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water meeting all
health-based standards in effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in 2004 to verify 85 percent of the population served by
community water systems received drinking water meeting health-based standards promulgated in or
after 1998.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in 2004 to verify 92% of the population served by
community water systems received drinking water meeting all health-based standards in effect as of
1994, up from 83% in 1994.
11-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2003
Actuals
91
96
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
92
85
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Performance Measures:
Percent of population served by community
drinking water systems with no violations during
the year of any Federally enforceable health-
based standards that were in place by 1994.
Population served by community water systems
providing drinking water meeting health-based
standards promulgated in or after 1998.
Population served by community water systems
that receive drinking water that meets health-
based standards with which systems need to
comply as of December 2001
Population served by community water systems
that receive drinking water that meets health-
based standards with a compliance date of
January 2002 or later
Percentage of community water systems that
provide drinking water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to comply as
of December 2001
Percentage of community water systems that
provide drinking water that meets health-based
standards with a compliance date of January
2002 or later
Percent of the population served by community
water systems in Indian country that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards
% of population served by community water
systems that receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards
through effective treatment and source water
protection
Baseline: In 1998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the
population served by non-community, non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water
for which no violations of Federally enforceable health standards had occurred during the year. Year-
to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include:
Stage 1 disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced
surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
Source Water Protection
In 2005 20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.
In 2004 Advance States' efforts with community water systems to protect their surface and ground water
resources that are sources of drinking water supplies.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in 2004 to verify 39,000 community water systems (75% of
the nation's service population) will have completed source water assessments and 2,600 of these (10%
of the nation's service population) will be implementing source water protection programs.
94
75
94
75
90
93
% Population
% Population
% Population
% Population
% CWSs
% CWSs
% Population
% population
11-13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Number of community water systems and
percent of population served by those CWSs that
are implementing source water protection
programs.
Percent of source water areas for community
water systems that achieve minimized risk to
public health
FY 2003
Actuals
Data Lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25% / 7,500
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
20
% pop/systems
% Areas
Baseline: EPA defines "achieve minimized risk" as substantial implementation of source water protection
actions, as determined by a State's source water protection strategy. Approximately 268 million
people are estimated to be served by Community Water Systems (CWSs) in 2002.
River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption
In 2005 80% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.
In 2005 At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish consumption
advisory in 2002 will have improved water and sediment quality so that increased consumption of fish
and shellfish is allowed.
In 2004 Reduce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to States, Tribes,
local governments, citizens, and decision-makers.
In 2003 Reduced consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to States, Tribes,
local governments, citizens, and decision-makers.
Performance Measures:
Lake acres assessed for the need for fish
advisories and compilation of state-issued fish
consumption advisory methodologies.
(cumulative)
River miles assessed for the need for fish
consumption advisories & compilation of state-
issued fish consumption advisory methodologies.
(cumulative)
Percent of water miles/acres, identified by states
or tribes as having fish consumption advisories
in 2002, where increased consumption of fish is
allowed.
Percent of the shellfish growing acres monitored
by states that are approved or conditionally
approved for use
FY 2003
Actuals
33
15
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
35
16%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
80
% Lake acres
% River miles
% Miles/Acres
% Areas
Baseline: In 1999, 7% of the Nation's rivers and 15% of the Nation's lakes were assessed to determine if they
contained fish that should not be eaten or should be eaten in only limited quantities. In September
1999, 25 states/tribes are monitoring and conducting assessments based on the national guidance to
establish nationally consistent fish advisories. In the 2000 Report to Congress on the National Water
Quality Inventory, 69% of assessed river and stream miles; 63% of assessed lake, reservoir, and pond
11-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
acres; and 53% of assessed estuarie square miles supported their designated use for fish consumption.
For shell fish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use.
Increase Information on Beaches
In 2005 Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for
swimming in over 94% of the days of the beach season.
In 2005 Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2% of the stream miles and lake acres
identified by states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming.
In 2004 Reduce human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information available to
the public and decision-makers.
In 2003 Reduced human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information available to
the public and decision-makers.
Performance Measures:
Beaches for which monitoring and closure data is
available to the public at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/.
(cumulative)
Restore water quality to allow swimming in
stream miles and lake acres identified by states
Days (of beach season) that coastal and Great
Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety
programs are open and safe for swimming.
FY 2003
Actuals
2,823
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
2,823
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
2
94
Beaches
Miles/Acres
Days/Season
Baseline: By the end of FY 1999, 33 states had responded to EPA's first annual survey on state and local beach
monitoring and closure practices and EPA made available to the public via the internet. An average of
9 recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the Centers for Disease
Control for the years 1994-1998, based on data housed in EPA/ORD internal database. In 2002,
monitored beaches were opened 94% of the days during the beach season.
VERFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measures: The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that meets
health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later. (Covered standards include: Stage I
disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water
treatment rule/arsenic.)
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
11-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System- Federal Version (SDWIS or SDWIS-FED).
SDWIS contains basic inventory information, including an individual public water system's activity status, type of
water system (i.e., community, non-community, and non-transient non-community), and the population served by that
system. SDWIS also contains violations records that detail violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's
implementing regulations. The performance measure is based on the population served by community water systems
that were active during any part of the performance year and did not have any violations designated as "health based."
Exceedances of a maximum contaminant level and violations of a treatment technique are health-based violations;
monitoring and reporting, record keeping, and public notification violations are not "health based."
Data Source: Agencies with primacy (primary enforcement authority) for the Public Water Supply Supervision
(PWSS) program including states and EPA Regional Offices with direct implementation (DI) responsibility for states
and Indian tribes. The Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the only tribe with primacy, is expected to begin reporting directly to
EPA in FY 2004. Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated water systems, determine compliance, and
report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily inventory and violations).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The analytical methods that drinking water systems use to collect violations
data are specified in the technical guidance associated with each drinking water regulation. Laboratories must be
certified by the primacy agencies to analyze drinking water samples and are subject to periodic performance audits
by the states and EPA as the direct implementers. Performance measures are based on data reported by individual
systems to states, which, in turn, supply the information to EPA through SDWIS. EPA then verifies and validates
the data for 10 to 12 states per year, according to a protocol, which is updated annually. To measure program
performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into a national statistic on overall compliance with health-based
drinking water standards. This statistic compares the total population served by community water systems meeting
all health-based standards to the total population served by all community water systems.
QA/QC Procedures: SDWIS-FED has numerous edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data. There
are quality assurance manuals for states and Regions to follow to ensure data quality. The manuals provide standard
operating procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the data, communication and follow-up
actions to be conducted with the state to achieve timely corrective action(s). EPA offers training to states on
reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error correction. User and system documentation is produced
with each software release and is maintained on EPA's web site. SDWIS-FED documentation includes data entry
instructions, data element dictionary (on-line data dictionary - electronic documentation), entity relationship
diagrams, a user's manual, and regulation-specific reporting requirements documents. 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. In addition, EPA provides 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. A user support hotline is available 5 days a week to answer questions and provide technical assistance.
At least one EPA staff person in each EPA regional office serves as the SDWIS-FED Regional data management
coordinator to provide technical assistance and training to the states on all aspects of information management and
required reporting to EPA. Primacy agencies' information systems are audited on an average schedule of once
every 3 years.
11-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
SDWIS-FED does not have a quality assurance project plan - it is a legacy system which has "evolved" since the
early 1980s prior to the requirement for a plan. The SDWIS-FED equivalent is the data reliability action plan15
(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. There are three major components of this plan:
assurance, assessment, and control. The assurance component includes management of the plan, development
and/or maintenance of tools used to support the implementation processes and procedures, and standard operating
procedures. It also includes provision of training, technical assistance vehicles, coordination with other program
areas that use the data or impact its quality. The second major component of the plan is assessment. Quality
assurance assessments include all types of review, audit, and assessment of the DRAP, data, and information needs.
The third major component of the plan is control. Quality assurance controls include software edit checks,
processing controls, security controls, and other procedural controls that limit or prevent incomplete, inaccurate, or
unauthorized updates or modifications to the data. The data verification protocol, and its use in on-site audits of
states' files, is the final measure of data quality control. Thirty-one state data verification audits were conducted
over the period from 1999 to 2001.
Data Quality Review: SDWIS data quality was identified as an Agency weakness in 1999 and has a corrective action
completion target date in 2005. SDWIS' weaknesses center around five major issues: 1) completeness of the data
(e.g., the inventory of public water systems, violations of maximum contaminant levels, enforcement actions)
submitted by the states, 2) timeliness of the data sent by the states, i.e., if states do not report at specified times, then
enforcement and oversight actions suffer, 3) difficulty receiving data from the states, 4) both cost and difficulty
processing and storing data in SDWIS after it has been received, and 5) difficulty getting SDWIS data for reporting and
analysis. The DRAP focuses on the first three issues, and an information strategic plan16 (ISP) has been developed and
is being implemented to address the last two issues, which deal primarily with technology (hardware and software)
concerns. For instance, the ISP is examining ways to improve tools and processes for creating and transferring data to
EPA, such as incorporating newer technologies and adapting the Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan to integrate
data and the flow of data from reporting entities to EPA via a secure central data exchange (CDX) environment.
Detailed activities and implementation schedules are included in these two documents, and to date the Agency expects
to correct these weaknesses by the end of 2005.
Routine data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a degree of nonreporting of violations of health-based
drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory monitoring and reporting requirements. As a result of these
data quality problems, the baseline statistic of national compliance with health-based drinking water standards likely
is lower than previously reported. The Agency is currently engaged in a rigorous statistical analysis and in
discussions with states to more accurately quantify the impact of these data quality problems on the estimate of
national compliance with health-based drinking water standards. This analysis could result in statistically based
adjustments to the baseline that will lower the 5-year (2008) performance targets for our SDWIS-based subobjective
and strategic measures. Ongoing EPA and state efforts to improve data quality in SDWIS already have resulted in
significant improvements in data accuracy and completeness, however. Even as these improvements are made,
SDWIS serves as the best source of national information on compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements,
and is a critical database for program management, the development of drinking water regulations, trends analyses,
and public information.
Management System Reviews (MSRs) of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) systems for SDWIS are carried
out by the Quality Assurance Division of the Office of Environmental Information. An MSR of SDWIS data quality
was completed in 1999 and the final report contained favorable comments on the level of detail in EPA's plans and
actions to improve data quality. EPA also completed a data reliability assessment (QA audit) of the 1996-1998
SDWIS-FED data in FY 2000, which, in turn, led to the development and issuance of the 2002 DRAP. A second
data reliability assessment is expected to be released in January 2004 and is based on 1998-2001 data in
SDWIS/FED. Also, the 2002 DRAP will be revised and expanded in 2004 to include the findings of the second
data reliability assessment.
15 Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work plan
document.
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options
for OGWDWInformation Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001. Available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategv.html
11-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
* The basic findings from the second data reliability assessment were that the data in SDWIS are accurate
but incomplete. Improvements were observed in all areas except timeliness of violations reporting. Core
inventory data are highly complete and accurate. The quality of violations data is improving, with high
accuracy but still low in completeness. Monitoring and reporting violations continue to be the major
problem area. Health-based violation data quality is highly accurate with higher levels of completeness
than monitoring violations data.
Finally, EPA and its contracted auditors of primacy agencies' information systems conduct individual data quality
reviews. The frequency of these audits is every 2 to 4 years depending on the resources available and programmatic
need in the region. Continuous data quality reviews include data quality estimates based on the results of data
verifications, timeliness and completeness of violation reporting, completeness of various required inventory data
elements, and completeness of reporting for specific rules.
Data Limitations: Currently SDWIS-FED is an "exceptions" database that focuses exclusively on public water
systems noncompliance with drinking water regulations (health-based and program). Primacy states implement
drinking water regulations with the support of the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant program and
determine whether public water systems have violated: maximum contaminant levels (MCL); treatment technique
requirements; consumer notification requirements; or monitoring-and-reporting requirements. These violations are
reported through SDWIS.
Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate that the most significant data quality
problem is under-reporting to EPA of monitoring and health-based standards violations and inventory
characteristics, such as water sources and/or latitude/longitude for all sources. 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 quantify the number of sources and treatments
applied, 2) undertake geo-spatial analysis, and 3) integrate and share data with other data systems. The under-
reporting limits EPA's ability to precisely quantify the population served by systems, which are meeting the health-
based standards. As described in the Data Quality Review section above, currently the program office is assessing
the percentage of unreported health-based violations and calculating possible adjustments to the performance data
that might be required for future reports. The SDWIS inventory of public water systems is highly complete and the
quality of population data has been determined to be of high quality.
In addition to the DRAP and the information strategy, other options under consideration to improve data in SDWIS
include:
1. Increase the focus on state compliance determinations and reporting of complete, accurate and timely
violations data. This is the single most significant factor for data quality improvement.
2. Develop incentives to improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of state reporting.
3. Enhance and ease the flow of data from providers to EPA via a secure environment (Central Data Exchange -
CDX), utilizing modern technologies (e.g., extensible markup language - XML) and standardized procedures
and processes.
4. Continue to analyze the quality of the data.
5. Obtain parametric data (analytical results used to evaluate compliance with monitoring regulations and
compliance with treatment techniques and maximum contaminant levels) from states through an agreement
on voluntarily reporting these data to EPA, monitoring schedules, and waiver information assigned to water
systems by the state primacy agency. This information would allow EPA to have more direct access to the
data used for compliance determinations for quality assurance and state oversight purposes. Potential
violation under reporting could be identified through the availability of this information and appropriate
corrective actions implemented.
Error Estimate: Analyses are under way to determine the impact of data quality on the performance measures, and
are scheduled for completion by early 2004. The analysis will include data from an additional round of audits to
provide a more accurate error estimate compared to the results of earlier baseline audits.
11-18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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
SDWIS-FED data entry, error correction, and regulation specific compliance determination and reporting requirements,
2) specific DRAP analyses, follow-up activities and state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data
verifications
conducted each year, and 4) creation of various quality assurance reports to assist regions and states in the
identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or conflicting data.
Second, more states will use SDWIS-STATE,17 a software information system jointly designed by states and EPA,
to support states as they implement the drinking water program. SDWIS-STATE is the counterpart to SDWIS-FED
and uses many of the same edit criteria and enforces many of the mandatory data elements. If the SDWIS-STATE
system is fully utilized by a state, the information it holds would meet EPA's minimum data requirements. SDWIS-
STATE links directly to SDWIS-FED, which aids in easing the states' reporting burden to EPA and in the process
minimizes data conversion errors and improves data quality and accuracy. In addition, a Web-enabled version of
SDWIS-STATE and a data migration application that can be used by all states to process data for upload to SDWIS-
FED are being developed. EPA estimates that 40 states will be using SDWIS-STATE for data collections by the
end of FY 2004.
Third, EPA is modifying SDWIS-FED to (1) streamline its table structure, which simplifies updates and retrievals,
(2) minimize data entry options that result in complex software and prevent meaningful edit criteria, (3) enforce
compliance with permitted values and Agency data standards through software edits, 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.
Fourth, EPA has developed a data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data
integration from other data sources like information from data verifications, sample (parametric) data, source water
quality data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] data), and indicators from inspections conducted at the water
systems. It will improve 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 information modules on other drinking water programs:
the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund. These modules will be integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set
with which to assess the nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. In 2003, agreement was
reached on the data elements for reporting source water and UIC data. In 2004, plans will be developed for design
of systems to address these data flows. Developing the systems to receive the data is scheduled for 2005.
References:
Plans*
• SDWIS-FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy system which has "evolved"
since the early 80s prior to the requirement for a Plan. The SDWIS-FED equivalent is the Data Reliability
Action Plan.
• Information Strategy Plan - SDWIS-FED (see footnote 2 )
• Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at http ://www.epa. gov/water/info.html
• Enterprise Architecture Plan
17 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle 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:
11-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv FY 2005 Annual Plan
• 1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
• 2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and status report
• PWSS Management Report (quarterly)
• 1999 Management Plan Review Report
• 2003 Management Plan Review Report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
• PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
• 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
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site and contains access to the
information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
contains information for users to better analyze the data,
and
contains reporting guidance, system and user
documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS-FED system.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve
minimized risk to public health.
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).18 EPA issued guidance to
implement these programs in 1997, State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance.19 EPA will
issue supplemental reporting guidance - - Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance - - in
2004. Starting in FY 2003, and updated annually thereafter, states will report to EPA on the results of their source
water assessment programs' (SWAPs) progress in implementing source water protection (SWP) strategies, and
whether such strategy implementation is affecting public health protection. To assess progress in completing the
SWAPs, state reporting will include five elements: (1) the delineated source water areas around each well and intake,
(2) whether the assessments are complete, (3) and (4) most prevalent and most threatening sources of contamination,
and (5) relative susceptibility ratings across source water areas, i.e., high, medium, or low susceptibility. To assess
progress in implementing the SWP strategies, state reporting will include three elements: (1) whether a prevention
strategy covering source water areas has been adopted, (2) whether that strategy is being implemented, and (3)
whether such strategy implementation has reached a substantial level. To assess whether the program is affecting
public health protection, states will report change in the number of source water areas with substantially
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
18 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at
19 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
11-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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.
In FY 2003, EPA maintained state-level summary data for each of these elements in an Excel database. Beginning
in FY 2004, 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)20 (GIS data). These data will be compatible with
the inventory data States are currently reporting to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).21 [Not
publicly available. Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-3797.]
Data Source: See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
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 2004 guidance, Source Water Assessment
and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance. States will only report state-level summary information that may be:
(1) directly related to specific community water systems in a database; (2) directly related to the community water
systems sampled in a statewide statistical sample; or (3) estimated using best professional judgment. Because state
reporting will be based on consistent definitions and procedures found in the Source Water Assessment and
Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, EPA assumes that these data are reliable for use in making management
decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures will be included in the 2004 Source Water Assessment and Protection
Measures: Initial Guidance. Additionally, a series of data checks will be built into the Excel-based 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 or on aggregate-level estimates. EPA's Regions 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 Excel-based data system, and work with states to resolve data exceptions. As a result, EPA
expects the quality of data on assessments and source water protection activities to improve over time.
Data Limitations: Because the initial reporting provides only state-level summary information, there is no standard
protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data to 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
SDWA only requires states to complete source water assessments. The only source water information that states are
required to report to EPA under SDWA is whether the assessments are completed. Although EPA's 2004 Source
Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance will set standard data definitions and procedures, it
also provides for considerable flexibility in states' data collection protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their
data. For example, some states may require each public water system (PWS) to report data, while others may
institute a voluntary process. Further, those states that use statistical surveys may choose samples differently.
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: EPA is developing a new source water data module to collect, store, and use
public water system-level data received from states. The source water module is being 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 will be integrated into the
20 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at
21 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
11-21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
drinking water data warehouse and be 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. The source water data module should be operational in FY 2004. A number of states are
expected to report this detailed data in 2004 as part of the EPA/ASDWA/GWPC initiative.
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 (to be released late summer 2003)
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 2005 Performance Measure: Percent of the population and the number of community water systems - -
serving more than 3,300 but less than 50,000 people - - that have certified the completion of the development
or revision of their emergency response plan.
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked against a master list of small systems
(each of which serves between 3,301 and 49,999 people) that has been compiled specifically for this performance
measure.
Data Source: The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) is the source of drinking water system
descriptive information, including system size. The master list of small drinking water systems was compiled by
determining which systems, based on size, are required to develop/revise emergency response plans and submit a
certification of completion of this activity to EPA in accordance with the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The method for determining the number of small community water
systems subject to the requirements of the Bioterrorism Act was to compile the number of community water systems
listed in SDWIS in July 2002. This listing was sent to Regional drinking water program staff who, in turn, worked
with each state in that Region to review and categorize these systems by size as defined in the Bioterrorism Act.
However, because the number of community water systems changes often - - due to acquisitions, mergers, closures,
etc. - - all major stakeholders in this effort, i.e., EPA, state, drinking water systems, states-related organizations, and
environmental groups agreed that these numbers should be considered estimates and that EPA should count the
number of certifications of completion of emergency response plans submitted to the Agency. Each state serves as
the final arbiter of issues related to system size. As each system submits this document, its name is checked. Any
system on the list that has not submitted its certification of emergency response plan completion by the statutory
deadline set forth in the Bioterrorism Act is contacted and a determination is made at that time if the system is still
in operation and when it will submit the required material.
QA/QC Procedures: Other than what is described above, there is no QA/QC procedure for this activity and
performance measure.
Data Quality Review: EPA works with the states on a regular basis to identify the drinking water systems in that
state and to assure that these systems are reporting data to SDWIS.
11-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: With a newly-developed information strategy developed by EPA in partnership
with the states and major stakeholders, several improvements to SDWIS are underway.
References: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: The quality of water and sediments will be improved to allow increased
consumption of fish in not less than 3% of the water miles/acres identified by states or tribes as having a fish
consumption advisory in 2002.
Performance Database: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories.1 The database includes fields
identifying the waters for which fish consumption advisories have been issued. The fields also identify the date
upon which the advisory was issued, thus allowing an assessment of trends. The National Hydrographic Data
(NHD) are used to calculate the spatial extent of the fish advisory. This information is updated continually as states
and tribes issue or revise advisories. The National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories database includes records
showing that 485,205 river miles and 11,277,276 lake acres were identified by states or tribes in calendar year 2002
(calendar year 2003 data will be available in May 2004) as having fish with chemical contamination levels resulting
in an advisory of potential human health risk from consumption. States and tribes report data on a calendar year
basis. The calendar year data are then used to support the fiscal year commitments (e.g. calendar year 2002 data
support the FY 2003 commitments). Metadata are also available describing methodologies used by states and tribes
for establishing advisories.
Data Source: State and Tribal Governments. These entities collect the information and enter it directly into the
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories database. EPA reviews advisory entries, including the states' or
tribes' responses to an on-line survey, which support the advisory decision. The Agency follows-up with the state
or local government to obtain additional information where it is incomplete.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The database comprises advisories that reporting states and tribes have in
effect each year. The advisories are specific to a waterbody, and thus are not aggregated. The percentage of lake
acres and river miles assessed is the ratio of the surface area of lakes and/or rivers for which states submit data to the
National Listing of Fish & Wildlife Advisories database and the total water surface area in the United States. It is a
simple mathematical calculation. The database reflects the actual number of advisories that states and tribes issued,
and are thus specific to the performance measure.
QA/QC Procedures: A standard survey, which has been approved by OMB, is available on the Internet for
electronic submission. A password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is completing the survey. EPA has
national guidance2'3 for states and tribes on developing and implementing quality assurance practices for the
collection of environmental information related to fish advisories. This guidance helps assure data quality of the
information that states and tribes use to decide whether to issue an advisory. The Office of WaterDs DQuality
Management Plan,D approved in September 2001 and published in July 20024, is the guidance that applies to this
information collection.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews advisory entries and responses to the survey to ensure the information is
complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
However, the Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the voluntary information that state and local governments
provide. There have been no external party reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: Participation in this survey and collection of data is voluntary. While the voluntary response
rate has been high, it does not capture the complete universe of advisories. Two states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and Guam do not report in the survey. In addition, states have not assessed all waters for the need for
advisories, so the information reported reflects a subset of waterbodies in the state.
Error Estimate: Because submitting data to the National Listing of Fish & Wildlife Advisories database is
voluntary, the Agency cannot be certain that the database contains information on 100% of the assessed waters in
11-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
the United States. Therefore, we may be understating the total amount of waters assessed, the magnitude of which
is not known. The error value cannot be quantified.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will use grants to encourage states to investigate more waters for the need
for advisories. This will increase the number of waterbodies assessed, and lead to a more complete characterization
of the nationDs fish safety.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. DNational Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories.D Washington, DC: EPA
Accessed May 1, 2003. Available only on the internet at http://map 1.epa. gov/
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. DFish Sampling and Analysis.D Volume 1 of "Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. 3rd ed. EPA-823-B- 00-007. Washington DC: EPA,
2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volumel/ .
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. DRisk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits.D Volume 2 of "Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. 3rd ed. EPA-823-B-00-008. Washington DC:
EPA, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. DQuality Management Plan.D EPA 821-X-02-001. Washington, DC: EPA,
July 2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ow/programs/qmpjuly2.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres monitored by states that will be
approved for use.
Performance Database: The Shellfish Information Management System (SIMS). The database is being developed
and implemented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a Cooperative Program chartered by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The database will include relevant information that is collected by State Shellfish Control
Authorities. Historically, NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-year intervals, 1985, 1990, and 1995.
These data were not stored in a database. Once operational, SIMS will be the first national shellfish growing area
database and will include NOAA's 1995 data and new data, available in September, 2003. State summary
information can then be used to track trends relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as baseline.
The SIMS database is designed as a real time database. The ISSC plans to request data updates annually, but states
may update their data any time. These data may be accessed at any time so timely status reports can be generated.
Data Source: EPA is a member of the ISSC SIMS steering committee, along with FDA and NOAA. The SIMS
architecture is compatible with other databases using the National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). The steering
committee is confident that the procedures used to collect, analyze, and report the data will result in accurate and
reliable data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: SDVIS is a real time database and, therefore, will provide up-to-date
information.
QA/QC Procedures: States will be responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data. SIMS is designed to use state
data to produce nationwide reports.
Data Quality Reviews: The ISSC is developing its SIMS processes to review data submitted by states.
Data Limitations: Based on NOAADs previous surveys and the voluntary nature of the effort, potential data
limitations may include incomplete coverage of shellfish growing areas.
Error Estimate: No estimates are available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: SIMS, initiated in September 2003, will be evaluated on a periodic basis to
identify and implement improvements.
References: None at this time.
11-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres
identified by states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for recreation.
[The data narrative for this measure is under Goal 2, Objective 2 — FY 2005 Performance
Measure: Water quality standards are fully attained in miles/acres of waters identified in
2000 as not attaining standards.]
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches
monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming.
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality
standards, and Nutrients)1, an new internal database that feeds into the National Health Protection Survey of
Beaches Information Management System.2 The database includes fields identifying the beaches for which
monitoring and notification information are available and the date upon which the advisory or closure was issued,
thus enabling trend assessments to be made. Beginning in FY 2003, the database will identify 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.
Data Source: Since 1997, EPA has surveyed state and local governments for information on their monitoring
programs and on their advisories or closures. State and local governmental response to the survey is voluntary. The
number of records on beaches has grown from 1,021 beaches in calendar year 1997 to 2,823 beaches in calendar
year 2002. States and local entities collect and report data on a calendar year basis. The calendar year data are then
used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g. 2002 calendar year data are used to support the FY 2003
commitments). Starting in calendar year 2003, data for beaches along the coast and Great Lakes must be reported to
EPA as a condition of grants awarded under the BEACH Act3. EPA reviews the advisory entries and responses to
the survey to ensure the information is complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to obtain
additional information where needed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are a census 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 advisory or closure actions taken. Thus the data
are suitable for the performance measure.
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 electronic submission. In calendar year 2002, voluntary survey responses
included 30 percent from counties, 32 percent from cities, 20 percent from states, 10 percent from regional or
districts, and 2 percent from federal entities. When a state or local official enters data over the Internet, a password
is issued to ensure the appropriate party is completing the survey. EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the
information is complete, then follows up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where
needed. Currently the Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of Water's "Quality
Management Plan," approved September 2001 and published July 20024). However, because state and local
officials submitted the data voluntarily, the Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the information provided. Starting
in 2003, coastal and Great Lakes states receiving a BEACH Act grant are subject 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 cannot verify the
accuracy of the voluntary information state and local governments provide. 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 has been voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it has not captured 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. Starting in calendar year 2003 participation in the survey will become a
mandatory condition for grants awarded under the BEACH Act program to coastal and Great Lakes states.
11-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
However, coastal and Great Lakes states and local governments are not required to apply for a grant. Those coastal
and Great Lakes states receiving a BEACH Act grant and subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40 CFR
31.45 are required to develop and implement quality assurance practices for the collection of environmental
information, helping to assure data quality.
Error Estimate: Because submitting data has been voluntary, the database does not contain information on 100%
of beaches in the United States. No error estimate is available for this data because the total number of beaches in
the U.S. is unknown.
New/Improved Data or Systems: With the passage of the BEACH Act of 2000, the Agency is authorized to award
grants to states to develop and implement monitoring and notification programs consistent with federal
requirements. As the Agency awards these implementation grants, it will require standard program procedures,
sampling and assessment methods, and data elements for reporting. To the extent that state governments apply for
and receive these grants, the amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve. In FY 2005, EPA
expects the 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to apply for grants to implement monitoring and notification programs.
The BEACH Act also requires the Agency to maintain a database of national coastal recreation water pollution
occurrences. The Agency has fulfilled this requirement by creating a new PRAWN database that includes this
information. EPA has also developed eBeaches5, a new Internet-based system for secure transmittal of beach
advisory and water quality data into PRAWN. This system will make it easier for states to accurately transmit this
information to EPA using the Internet.
References
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Waters. "Beach Notification Data User Guide." EPA-823-R-03-005.
Washington, DC: EPA, January 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/2003/
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Health Protection Survey of Beaches". Washington, DC: EPA.
Accessed May 23, 2003. Available only on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/
3. 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.
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001. Washington, DC: EPA,
July 2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ow/programs/qmpjuly2002.
5. U. S. EPA. Office of Water. "eBeaches." Fact Sheet. EPA-823-F-03-009.
Washington, DC, July 2003. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (BEACH)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 (42 U.S.C. 1023)
EPCRA section 313 (42 U.S.C. 11023)
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996
National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102
Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
PPA (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
11-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Protect Water Quality
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Protect Water Quality
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Inspector General
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$2,346,144.8
$274,428.9
$3,541.2
$1,932.9
$12,836.2
$2,053,405.6
1,546.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,647,043.1
$286,677.0
$0.0
$1,887.0
$10,579.2
$1,347,900.0
1,610.2
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,645,669.9
$290,271.3
$0.0
$2,025.1
$10,623.5
$1,342,750.0
1,603.9
FY2005Req.v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($1,373.2)
$3,594.3
$0.0
$138.2
$44.3
($5,150.0)
-6.3
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator
Training
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec.
319)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Congressionally Mandated Projects
International Capacity Building
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
$228,776.9
$18,155.7
$193,648.9
$41,810.6
$1,386,537.4
$7,070.0
$169,317.7
$208,639.3
$1,214.1
$90,974.2
$2,346,144.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$238,500.0
$19,000.0
$200,400.0
$40,000.0
$850,000.0
$12,049.9
$189,230.1
$0.0
$431.7
$97,431.4
$1,647,043.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,500.0
$209,100.0
$19,750.0
$222,400.0
$40,000.0
$850,000.0
$12,296.0
$190,785.3
$0.0
$372.0
$99,466.6
$1,645,669.9
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$1,500.0
($29,400.0)
$750.0
$22,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$246.1
$1,555.2
$0.0
($59.7)
$2,035.1
($1,373.3)
11-27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Watershed Protection
In 2005 500 of the Nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least 80% of the assessed water
segments.
In 2005 Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012, with an
interim milestone of restoring 2% of these waters - identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by
2005.
In 2004 By FY 2005, Water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 625 of the Nation's 2,262
watersheds will have greater than 80 percent of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards, up
from 500 watersheds in 1998.
Performance Measures:
Watersheds that have greater than 80% of
assessed waters meeting all water quality
standards.
Waterbodies (river miles and lake acres)
identified in 2000 as not attaining Water quality
standards, are fully attained.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
500 (FY 05)
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
500
8-digitHUCs
% Miles/Acres
Baseline: As of 2002 state reports 453 watersheds had met the criteria that greater than 80% of assessed waters
met all water quality standards. For a watershed to be counted toward this goal, at least 25% of the
segments in the watershed must be assessed within the past 4 years consistent with assessment
guidelines developed pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. In 2002, 0% of the 255,408
miles/and 6,803,419 acres of waters identified on 1998/2000 lists of impaired waters developed by
States and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Dredged Material/Ocean Disposal
In 2005 Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by
at least 0.1 point; benthic quality by at least 0.1 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 point
In 2005 Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is
improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point
11-28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal
waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is
improved (cumulative).
Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in
coastal waters at the national levels reported in
the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for coastal wetlands loss
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for contamination of sediments
in coastal waters
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for benthic quality
Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal
Condition Report for eutrophic condition
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
2.5
4.3/4.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.8
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Baseline: National rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system where 1 is poor and
5 is good and is expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal
Condition Report indicators [i.e., water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic
conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue contamination]. The 2002 National
Coastal Condition Report indicated 4.3 for water clarity and 4.5 for dissolved oxygen, 1.4 for coastal
wetlands loss; 1.3 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1.4 for benthic quality; & 1.7 for
eutrophic condition.
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards
In 2005 In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 11%, households on tribal lands lacking access
to basic sanitation.
In 2005 Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less than 35 monitoring stations in tribal
waters for which baseline data are available (i.e., show at least a 10% improvement for each of four
key parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal conforms.)
In 2004 Assure that States and Tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in
accordance with the Water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program
priorities.
11-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
States with new or revised water quality
standards that EPA has reviewed and approved
or disapproved and promulgated federal
replacement standards.
Tribes with water quality standards adopted and
approved (cumulative).
Number of monitoring stations (for which
baseline data on 4 key parameters are available)
where water quality is improved.
Number of households on tribal lands lacking
access to basic sanitation.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
20
33
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
35
11
States
Tribes
Stations
Households
Baseline: The performance measure of state submissions (above) thus represents a "rolling annual total" of
updated standards acted upon by EPA, and so are neither cumulative nor strictly incremental. EPA
must review and approve or disapprove state revsisions to water quality standards withing 60-90 days
after receiving the state's package. In 2002, there will be four key parameters available at 900
sampling stations in Indian country. In 2002, Indian Health Service indicates that 71,000 households
on Tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Watersheds in which at least 80% of the assessed water segments meet
water quality standards.
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS) (1) is
used to summarize water quality information at the watershed level. For purposes of this national summary,
"watershedsD are equivalent to 8-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), of which there are 2,262 nationwide.
WATERS is a geographic information system that integrates many existing data management tools including the
STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database (2), the Assessment Database (3) and the Water Quality Standards
database (4). Water quality information available through WATERS includes data submitted by the states under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b). These data are submitted to EPA every two years, with annual electronic
updates. The U.S.EPA summarizes these data in the National Water Quality Inventory Report. (5)
Data Source: State CWA Section 305(b) reporting. The data used by the states to assess water quality and prepare
CWA Section 305(b) reports come from multiple sources (state monitoring networks, United States Geological
Survey (USGS), local governments, volunteer monitors, academic institutions, etc.) as well as predictive tools such
as water quality models. Raw data may be entered by states and other sources into STORET. States compare
available ambient monitoring data to their water quality standards to arrive at assessment results. Assessment
results are then entered into the Assessment Database. EPA uses the assessment results to present a snap-shot of
water quality as reported by the states (the National Water Quality Inventory Report), but because state methods and
water quality standards vary widely, does not use the assessment results to report trends in water quality.
Information on each stateDs assessment methodology can be obtained from its 305(b) report, and raw data entered
into STORET must meet metadata standards.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ various methods of ambient water data collection,
including: 1) Direct sampling of chemical, physical, and biological parameters using targeted site selection (usually,
where problems are most likely or where water is heavily used); 2) Predictive models of water quality standards
attainment; 3) Direct sampling at statistically-valid, probability-based sampling networks (in its early stages in a
number of states); 4) Compilation of data from outside sources such as volunteer monitors, academic institutions,
11-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
and others. EPA-supported models include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX, and CORMIX. Descriptions of these
models and instructions for their use can be found at www.epa.gov/OST/wqm/.
The standard operating procedures and deviations from these methods for data sampling and prediction processes
are stored by states in the STORET database. EPA aggregates state assessment information by watershed (as
described above) to generate the national performance measure. State assessment results describe attainment of
designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards and thus represent a direct measure of performance.
State CWA Section 305(b) data are suitable for providing a snapshot of the ambient water quality conditions that
exist across the nation, in that subset of waters that are assessed. However, nationally aggregated data are currently
not suitable for year- to-year comparisons. As states update their monitoring programs to include probabilistic
monitoring, EPA will be able to conduct nationally aggregated, year-to year comparisons.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states in their individual assessments (under CWA Section
305(b)) and accessed through WATERS is dependent on individual state procedures. Numerous system level
checks are built into the data sources in WATERS, based upon the business rules associated with the water quality
assessment database. States are given the opportunity to review the information to ensure it accurately reflects the
data they submitted. Detailed data exchange guidance and training are also provided to the states. Sufficiency
threshold for inclusion in this measure requires that 20% of stream miles in an 8-digit HUC be assessed. The Office
of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 2002 (6). It describes
the quality system used by the Office of Water and applies to all environmental programs within the Office of Water
and to any activity within those programs that involves the collection or use of environmental data.
Data Quality Review: Numerous independent reports have cited that weaknesses in water quality monitoring and
reporting undermine EPADs ability to depict the condition of the NationDs waters, to make trend assessments, and to
support scientifically-sound water program decisions. The most recent reports include the 1998 Report of the
Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program (7), the March 15, 2000 General
Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (8), the 2001
National Academy of Sciences Report, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (9), a 2002
National Academy of Public Administration Report, Understanding What States Need to Protect Water Quality
(10), and EPA 's Draft Report on the Environment (11). Water quality reporting under Section 305(b) has been
identified as an Agency-Level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.
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.
The Office of Water has issued several recent guidance documents designed to increase consistency and coverage in
state monitoring, assessment and reporting. In November 2001, EPA issued its Integrated Reporting guidance (12)
which calls on states to integrate the development and submission of 305(b) water quality reports and Section 303(d)
lists of impaired waters. The Integrated Report will enhance the ability of water quality managers to display, access,
and integrate environmental data and information from all components of the water quality program. In July 2002,
EPA released the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - a Compendium of Best Practices (13),
intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring program design and in the data and decision criteria used
to support water quality assessments. And in March 2003, EPA issued Elements of a State Water Monitoring and
Assessment Program (14) which describes ten elements that each state water quality-monitoring program should
contain and a ten-year time frame for implementing all elements. As part of each stateDs monitoring strategy, state
data will be accompanied by quality assurance plans.
EPA has enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the Assessment Database) so that they
include documentation of data quality information. EPADs WATERS tool integrates many databases including
STORET, the Assessment Database, and the Water Quality Standards Database. These integrated databases
facilitate comparison and understanding of differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment
results.
11-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Limitations: Data are not representative of comprehensive national water quality assessments because most
states do not yet employ a monitoring design that characterizes all waters in each reporting cycle. States, territories,
and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies because it is prohibitively expensive
to monitor all water bodies. Furthermore, states do not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess
attainment with water quality standards. For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological
community condition to levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. State water quality
standards themselves vary from state to state. State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties
associated with derived or modeled data. These variations in state practices and standards limit how the assessment
reports they provide can be used to describe water quality at the national level and prevent the agency from
aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Office of Water is currently working with states, tribes and other Federal
agencies to improve the database that supports this management measure by addressing the underlying methods of
monitoring water quality and assessing the data. Also, the Office of Water is working with partners to enhance
monitoring networks to achieve comprehensive coverage of all waters, use a consistent suite of core water quality
indicators (supplemented with additional indicators for specific water quality questions), and document key data
elements, decision criteria and assessment methodologies in electronic data systems. The Office of Water is using a
variety of mechanisms to implement these improvements including data management systems, guidance,
stakeholder meetings, training and technical assistance, program reviews and negotiations.
EPA is working with states to enhance their monitoring and assessment programs, with a particular emphasis on the
probabilistic approach. These enhancements, along with improving the quality and timeliness of data for making
watershed-based decisions, will greatly improve EPADs ability to use state assessments in consistently portraying
national conditions and trends. Specific state refinements include developing rigorous biological criteria to measure
the health of aquatic communities (and attainment with the aquatic life use) and designing probability-based
monitoring designs to support statistically-valid inferences about water quality. The EPA Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) design team has been instrumental in helping states design the monitoring
networks and analyze the data. Initial efforts have focused on streams, lakes and coastal waters. Wetlands and large
rivers will be targeted next. States are implementing these changes incrementally and in conjunction with traditional
targeted monitoring. At last count, 16 states have adopted probability-based monitoring designs, several more are
evaluating them, and all but 10 are collaborating in an EMAP study.
The Agency's FY2005 budget request includes a significant increase to support water quality monitoring
improvements. A state grants component will support states' implementation of monitoring strategies, including
refinement of biological assessment methods and probability-based designs for different water resource types,
landscape models and other predictive tools, remote sensing and innovative indicators of water quality to help
streamline where additional monitoring is needed, and targeted monitoring to provide data to implement local
management actions such as National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permits and Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The initiative will also support improvement of data management systems to
ensure that water quality monitoring data are understandable and available to all who need it. Included here are
upgrades to STORET, to improve system navigation and operation and to enhance analysis and presentation
applications. Funds will also support enhancing the capability to exchange water quality data with states.
References:
1. WATERS available on-line at www.epa.gov/waters. Aggregate national maps and state and watershed
specific data for this measurement are displayed numerically and graphically in the WATERS database.
2. STORET available online at www.epa.gov/STORET. Links to user guide and descriptions of the database
can be found here.
3. Assessment Database information available at http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/
4. Water Quality Standards Database information available at www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. National Water Quality Inventory, 2000 Report. Washington, D.C: August 2002.
EPA 841 -R-02-001. Available at www.epa.gov/305b/2000Report
6. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Quality Management Plan. Washington, DC: July 2002. EPA 831-X-02-001.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ow/programs/qmp iuly2002.pdf
11-32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
7. National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. Report of the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. EPA 100-R-98-006. Available at
http ://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/faca/tofc.htm
8. General Accounting Office. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
Incomplete Data. Washington, DC: March 15, 2000. GAO/RCED-00- 54.
9. National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load
Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC: 2001.
10. National Academy of Public Administration. Understanding What States Need to Protect Water Quality.
Washington, D.C: December 2002. Academy Project No. 2001- 001. Available at www.napawash.org
11. U.S. EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
http ://www. epa. gov/indicators/roe/index. htm
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Dlntegrated Water Quality Assessment and Report Guidance.D November 19,
2001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2002wqma.html
13. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. DConsolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of
Best Practices.D (First Edition). Washington, DC: July 31, 2002. Available at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html
14. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. Washington,
DC: March 2003. EPA841-B-03-003. Available at: www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Water quality standards are fully attained in miles/acres of waters identified
in 2000 as not attaining standards.
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS- found
at http://www.epa. gov/waters/) is the overarching Agency tool that is used to store water quality information related
to this measure. Within WATERS, resides a section entitled "303(d) Information," compiled from the
comprehensive data set we refer to as States' Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean Water Act Section
303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"). This tool (found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is
used to generate reports that identify individual impaired waters as well as an aggregation of impaired waters that is
the total impaired river-miles and lake-acres. This information, combined with information and comment from EPA
Regions and states, yields the baseline data for this measure- river-miles and lake-acres of impaired waters in 2000.
As Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are developed, updated and entered into the National TMDL Tracking
System (NTTS), and water bodies are no longer counted as impaired, the associated restored river-miles and lake-
acres are removed from the year 2000 impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports, scheduled every 6 years
(e.g. future reporting years 2006 and 2012), as percentage improvements to water body impairment.
Data Source: The underlying data source for this measure is State 303(d) lists of their impaired water bodies. Each
state is required to submit this list to EPA every two years. States prepare the lists using actual water quality
monitoring data, probability-based monitoring information, and other information and knowledge the state has, in
order to make comprehensive determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body impairments.
Once EPA approves a state's 303(d) list, EPA enters the information into WATERS, as described above.
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 CORMIX. Descriptions of these models and instructions for their use can be found at
www.epa.gov/OST/wqm/. The standard operating procedures and deviations from these methods for data sampling
and prediction processes are stored by states in the STORET database. EPA aggregates state data by watershed (as
described above) to generate the national performance measure. State provided data describe attainment of
designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards and thus represent a direct measure of performance.
State CWA Section 305(b) data are suitable for providing a snapshot of the ambient water quality conditions that
exist across the nation; however, nationally aggregated ambient water quality data are currently not suitable for year-
to-year comparisons. As states update their monitoring programs to include probabilistic monitoring, we will be
able to do nationally aggregated, year-to year comparisons.
11-33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state 303(d) lists (under CWA
Section 303(d)) 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. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was approved in July 2001.
EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a quality management plan (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: Numerous 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 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program22, the March 15, 2000 General Accounting Office
report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data23, the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management24 and EPA 's Draft Report on the
Environment.25
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 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, the
Assessment database, and a new 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 a guidance document: Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - a
Compendium of Best Practices26 (released on the Web July 31, 2002 at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html)
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, (August 2002) which is currently under review by our state partners. This
guidance describes ten elements that each state water quality-monitoring program should contain and proposes time-
frames for implementing all ten elements.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because states do not yet employ
a monitoring design that monitors all waters in each 303(d) listing cycle. States also do not use a consistent suite of
water quality indicators to assess attainment with 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 303(d) lists provided by states can be used to describe
water quality at the national level. States, territories and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of
their water bodies. There are differences among their programs, sampling techniques, and standards.
22 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology. EPA Number 100R98006. National Center for Environmental Publications]
23 Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. March 15,2000. RCED-00-54 and
Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters. January 11, 2002
24 Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research
Council
25 US EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
26 U.S. EPA. (July 31, 2002). Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices. (First Edition). Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Available on the
Internet: Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html
11-34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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.
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. EPA issued new listing Guidance on July 21, 2003 entitled Guidance for 2004
Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
(Guidance). The Guidance may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdl0103/index.html. The Guidance
addresses a number of issues that states and EPA identified during the 2002 listing cycle. Among these issues are
minimum data requirements and sample size requirements in making listing determinations, use of probability-based
sampling in the state's monitoring program, improved year-to-year consistency in a choice of a geo-referencing
scheme, and use of a consistent method of segmenting water bodies and denoting changes to the segmentation
between listing cycles.
References: Cited in body of text above.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Water quality in Indian country
Performance Database: National Water Information System (NWIS), the USGS water monitoring database will be
used to report on this measure (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/usaX Although NWIS has not yet adopted the EPA
Tribal Identifier Data Standard (see http://oaspub.epa.gov/edr/epastd$.startup'). the AIEO Tribal Information
Management System (https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TIMS/) (phone 202-564-0303 for password access) can extract
records from NWIS on the basis of reservation boundaries, enabling" both data systems to provide tribal water
quality data for this performance measure. NWIS records monitoring dates, so time series analysis will be a key
feature of the Indian country water quality performance measure^
Data Sources: NWIS merges of all USGS district offices, and consists primarily of data collected by USGS field
staff, either on a regular basis or for special projects.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality performance measure depends on the
quality of the USGS NWIS data system. Documentation for NWIS quality assurance may be found at:
(http ://water.usgs. gov/pubs/dds/ wqn96cd/html/ wqn/qasure/qasure. htm).
Data Quality Reviews: Two quality reviews are envisioned. The first will be a comparison of the federal data, in
aggregate, and the water quality data reported by the tribes in CWA §106 water quality assessment reports. The
review will be conducted for five tribal reservations. The second is a comparison of Storage and Retrieval System
(STORET) data, EPA's repository of water quality monitoring data reported by states, tribes, other grantees, and
other federal agencies, and NWIS water quality data for similar tribal geographic areas; this review is dependant
upon future increased STORET use by tribes. The results of these two data quality reviews will allow AIEO to
estimate a range of variation for the data used in the water quality assessments.
Data Limitations: The data collected for the tribal water quality performance measure are limited by the accuracy
of the reservation boundary files used by AIEO. The files, IND-3, are distributed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Geographic Data Service Center, (Internet site disabled). There are minor variations between the files provided by
BIA and other sources of tribal boundary files. In an analysis of selected reservation boundaries, AIEO has
determined that there is an approximately a 5% variation between the files from the BIA IND-3 dataset, and the
Census Tiger files of reservation boundaries (http://www.census.gov/ geo/www/cob/bdv files.html).
Error Estimate: AIEO estimates an approximately 5% error in the identification of water monitoring sites that fall
inside reservation boundaries because of errors in tribal boundaries and latitude and longitude of monitoring sites,
resulting in errors in the extraction of geographic records from NWIS. The overall error of the performance measure
is expected to be the percent variation in the water quality data from different sources (STORET, water quality
assessment reports from tribes, NWIS) compounded by the error introduced by inaccuracies in boundary files.
AIEO expects a 5% or greater error in the analysis, depending on the magnitude of the variation of the data from the
different sources used.
11-35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
New/Improved Data or Systems: As NWIS adopts a tribal identifier code, AIEO will no longer have to rely on
geographic extraction of data records and that source of error will be eliminated. To date, USGS has not announced
plans to tribally index their water quality data systems.
A key improvement in EPA's ability to assess tribal water quality will be the enhancement of tribes' usage of
STORET. Plans are in place to improve outreach and technical assistance to tribes and states to encourage greater
use of the system, and to use STORET's capabilities to upload local information to the national data warehouse.
This will facilitate determinations of water quality status and trends nationwide and in Indian country in particular.
EPA will also work to incorporate into STORET the agency's new Tribal Identifier Data Standard to further
facilitate assessing tribal water quality information.
References:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. STORET Database. http://www.epa.gov/STORET/.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. American Indian Environmental Office. TIMS Database
https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TIMS/
3. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Division. NWIS Database http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis/usa.
4. Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2000). IND-3 Indian Reservations. Geographic Data Service Center. Lakewood.
CO. (internet site disabled).
5. U.S. Census Bureau. Geographic Division. 2000 Census Tiger Files of American Indian Areas
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/bdv files.html
FY 2005 Performance Measure: In coordination with other federal partners, reduce the number of
households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
Performance Database: The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has been in the forefront of working
with multiple agencies on a federal interagency Tribal Enterprise Architecture. Much of the work falls under the
auspices of OMB Circular A-16 on coordination of federal geographic data across federal agencies (OMB 2003).
The Tribal Enterprise Architecture includes access to a wide variety of data and information from several agencies
and numerous sources within those agencies. It also includes several AIEO and jointly- developed applications to
determine environmental performance in Indian country for a variety of specific purposes, including strategic
planning and annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act. The components of the Tribal
Enterprise Architecture create a broad, multi-variant view of the environmental conditions and programs in Indian
country. EPA will track the status of federal and other basic sanitation infrastructure projects being undertaken in
Indian country.
Data Sources: AIEO Tribal Enterprise Architecture will be linked to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Sanitation
Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) database, which will be used to measure tribal access to basic sanitation in
real-time. IHS STARS database, Level 4 (unsafe water or sanitation) and Level 5 (unsafe water and sanitation)
information will be analyzed.
While the information from the STARS database is reported in the aggregate to Congress on an annual basis, the
real-time data allow EPA to link IHS codes with EPA tribal codes on a project- by-project basis. It is anticipated that
a significant percentage of other federal activity, besides EPA and IHS,— which provides tribes access to basic
sanitation is captured in the IHS STARS system. AIEO will make the appropriate interagency inquiries to verify that
all data are captured.
QA/QC Procedures: All the data used in the Tribal Enterprise Architecture project have quality assurance and
metadata documentation prepared by the originating agency. AIEO works to standardize data and use metadata
standards as established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Data Quality Reviews: A unique feature of the Tribal Enterprise Architecture is the direct incorporation of a data
center for documentation of errors and correction of text in the various data systems. This system, called the TIMS
Data Center, provides for the systematic review and submission of corrections for 1) numeric and factual data from
the national data systems used, and 2) qualitative statements made in a textual context. In the case of corrections to
national databases, AIEO monitors submissions, and forwards them to appropriate systems administrators who make
decisions on changes based on their criteria
11-36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Limitations: AIEO uses new geographic data mining technologies to extract records based on the
geographical coordinates of the data points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and longitude
coordinates that place it in the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned to the Arapaho and
Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation. This technique is extremely powerful, because it "tribally enables"
large numbers of information systems which were previously incapable of identifying tribes. This will be applied to
all the EPA databases. There are limitations, however. When database records are not geographically identified
with latitude and longitude, the technique does not work and the record is lost to the system. Likewise, the accuracy
of the method depends on the accuracy of the reservation boundary files. EPA continues to request up-to-date and
accurate coverage of reservation boundaries and land status designations from other agencies
Error Estimate: In an analysis of selected reservation boundaries, AIEO has determined that there is a 5%
variation between the Bureau of Indian Affairs' IND-3 reservation boundaries and those from the United States
Census Bureau (e.g., U.S. Census Tiger file of reservation boundaries). Another source of error comes from records
that are not sufficiently described geographically to be assigned to specific tribes. For some agencies, such as
USGS, the geographic record is complete, so there are no errors from these sources. It is estimated that 20% of the
regulated facilities in EPA regulatory databases are not geographically described, and thus will not be recognized by
the AIEO methodology.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The technologies used by the Tribal Enterprise Architecture are all new and
state-of-the art. Everything is delivered securely on the Internet with no need for special software or desktop data
disks. The geographic interface is an ESRI product called ARC/IMS, which is a web-based application, with a fully
functional GIS system that is fully scalable. In FY 2003, the entire system will be rendered in 3D. The Tribal
Enterprise Architecture uses XML protocols to attach to and display information seamlessly and in real-time from
cooperating agency data systems without ever having to download the data to an intermediate server.
References:
1. Office of Management and Budget (2003). Circular A-16 Revised.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/aO 16/aO 16 rev.html
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Office of Water Indian Strategic Plan.
3. GAP Grant Tracking System, http://gap.tetratech-ffx.com (password available upon request)
4. Tribal Enterprise Architecture http://everest.sdc-moses.com/TRIBAL/index3.html (password available upon
request)
5. Indian Health Service. Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System, http://wstars.geonorth.com (password
available upon request)
6. TIMS Data Center, http://it-tetratech-ffx.com/tribal/ (password available upon request)
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Implementing EPA's Information Quality Guidelines:
Guidance on Information Products Developed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
FY 2005 Performance Measures: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic
system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels reported in the 2002 National
Coastal Condition Report.
Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for:
coastal wetlands loss by at least. 1 points; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least. 1 points; benthic
quality by at least. 1 points; & eutrophic condition by at least. 1 points
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 it is examined for QA purposes, has
appropriate metadata attached to it and undergoes initial statistical analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata
completion is transferred to EMAP/NCA database and is web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca.
11-37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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 was completed in the National Estuary Programs, including all individual
national estuaries. Additional NEP sampling included sufficient sites to increase total sites within NEP boundaries
to 30 for a two-year period between 2000-2003.
This "third party" data is 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. Both entities are subject to the
development of a QAPP (either the National Coastal QAPP or one of their developments based on this QAPP) and
QA testing and auditing by EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic survey design comprised
to permit extrapolation of results to the entire target population (in this case - all estuarine resources of the specific
state) The design maximizes the spatial spread of the sites and locating each site based on a specific latitude-
longitude combination. The survey utilizes an index sampling period (generally late summer) to maximize
encountering water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP and
the 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 and shipped to the processing
laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide electronic information to state or
EPA. For data not directly provided to EPA from laboratories, state forward data to EPA. For data not provided
directly to states, EPA forwards data to states. EPA analyzes data to assess regional condition and states analyze
data to assess condition of state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national and regional basis are reported as
chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report series. The overall regional condition index is the mean of the
rating scores of the indicators used in successive versions of the Coastal Condition Report (see last section). An
improvement for one of the indicators by a full category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the
regional estimate to meet the performance measure 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 operation is successfully located; (3) QAPP and field collection manuals are followed;
(4) all samples can be successfully collected; (5) all analyses are completed in accordance with 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 population 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 meets this expectation and the sampling design,
response design, analysis approach and reporting approach have been peer reviewed successfully multiple times.
The data are suitable for individual 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 as necessary to provide performance
measurement information.
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
11-38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
reference materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by EPA/ORD). All states are subject to
audits at least once every two years these controls at least once every two years for audits, training in year 2000 and
retraining sessions every two years, and batch sample processing (including QA samples in each batch) for
laboratory analyses.
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 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and written report not yet available; oral debriefing
revealed no deficiencies). 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 inappropriate behavior and potential falsification of laboratory results in
connection with other programs not related to NCA. A full investigation has not been completed by the IG and in
the interim has not determined any wrongdoing by the personnel associated with NCA. Our program has conducted
an internal audit assessment and investigation and could determine only one finding, which was an incorrect use of a
chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals). This finding has been corrected and all
samples "digested" incorrectly have been 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 state estimate annually), 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
then, (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sample results, a QA finding is determined regarding the precision of a
measurement (control mortality toxicity testing exceeds limit detection limit for a chemistry batch exceeds limit,
etc.). In these cases, the data are "flagged" in the database 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 source of
external variability in year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, etc.) and the only source of internal variation
is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in sample indicators collected and analyzed).
This internal reporting modification required 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 1 year
and analysis takes 1 year. Report production and peer review generally take an additional year. (F) Data collections
are completed annually; however, the EPA/ORD program for this collection will occur through 2004. After 2004,
ORD will assist OW as requested to provide expertise but the conduct of the surveys after 2004 will no longer be
supported (financially) by EPA ORD.
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on scientific review and
development. A change in some reporting indicators has occurred in order to more accurately represent the
intended ecological process or function. For example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the
2000 data. In order to compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the underlying data collection
procedures have not changed.
(2) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition. QA requirements are
met by 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.
11-39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
(3) The only reason for the discontinuance of the National performance goal would be the elimination of the
surveys after 2004.
In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the baseline for this
performance measure, the original scores reported in 2001 have been re-calculated in the pending 2004 report using
the index modifications described above (#1). These "new" results for the baseline (re-calculated scores) are
reported in Appendix C of the pending report scheduled for release in fall 2004.
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. In review Assigned
Report Number EPA-620/R-04/001 (expected release date - fall 2004).
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Annual Appropriations Acts
Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554)
Clean Vessel Act
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
National Environmental Policy Act, Section 102
National Invasive Species Act of 1996
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act (OAPCA)
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Shore Protection Act of 1988
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
11-40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Enhance Science and Research
Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of clean and safe water by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of the environmental
iinHpr Gnal 9
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Enhance Science and Research
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$119,269.5
$18,346.3
$97,900.4
$2,481.7
$540.9
535.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$120,501.6
$21,640.6
$95,708.8
$2,508.8
$643.3
526.7
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$120,959.1
$22,084.0
$95,527.1
$2,702.6
$645.4
526.5
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$457.5
$443.3
($181.7)
$193.8
$2.1
-0.1
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Surface Water Protection
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY2003
Actuals
$520.9
$4,328.9
$43,253.7
$46,934.1
$24,231.9
$119,269.5
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,004.4
$0.0
$46,053.4
$47,178.5
$26,265.3
$120,501.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,011.3
$0.0
$46,118.1
$46,809.8
$27,019.9
$120,959.1
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$6.9
$0.0
$64.7
($368.7)
$754.6
$457.5
11-41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Research
Scientific Rationale for Surface Water Criteria
In 2005 Provide methods for developing water quality criteria so that, by 2008, approaches and methods are
available to States and Tribes for their use in developing and applying criteria for habitat alteration,
nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens and toxic chemicals that will support designated
uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water
bodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Performance Measures:
Methods for developing water quality criteria
based on population-level risks of multiple
stressors to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent
wildlife.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
09/30/05
methods
Baseline: State, Tribal, and EPA programs that assess, maintain, and restore water quality are all dependent upon
the ability to define water quality standards that, when met, are protective of the designated and desired
use of streams, lakes, and estuaries. The scientific bases for such standards are water quality criteria
that relate biological outcomes (e.g., fish populations, aquatic wildlife communities, threatened and
endangered species) to measurable water quality parameters (e.g., nutrients, suspended and embedded
sediments, chemical concentrations). Relatively recent and Congressionally-mandated studies by the
National Research Council call for continued and more targeted scientific studies on water quality
criteria that reflect observed environmental variations and that reflect the multiple influence of habitat
alteration, regional and watershed conditions, and appropriate designated uses. Accordingly, EPA has
modified its longstanding research on water quality criteria to address these issues. Scientific outputs
from this research can be integrated into EPA technical guidance to the States and Tribes. Adoption
and deployment of new criteria developed with the assistance of the new methods and approaches will
improve the cost-effectiveness of TMDL's and related restoration efforts. Beginning in FY 2005,
regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's
Investment Criteria for Research and Development. Reviewers will also qualitatively determine
whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Recommendations and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA
research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA).
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Methods for developing water quality criteria based on population-level risks of
multiple stressors to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
11-42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
STATUTORY AUTHORITES
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Clean Vessel Act
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
Endangered Species Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
National Invasive Species Act of 1996
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Shore Protection Act of 1988
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Water Resource Development Act (WRD A)
11-43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
STRATEGIC GOAL: Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and
cleaning ut> contaminated rjrorjerties to reduce risks nosed bv releases of harmful substances.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Left uncontrolled, hazardous and
nonhazardous 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. Hazardous
substances can kill living organisms in lakes and
rivers, destroy vegetation in contaminated areas,
cause major reproductive complications in wildlife,
and otherwise limit the ability of an ecosystem to
survive.
MEANS AND STRATEGY
EPA will work to preserve and restore the
land using the most effective waste management and
cleanup methods available. EPA will use a hierarchy
of approaches to protect the land: reducing waste at
its source, recycling waste, and managing waste
effectively by preventing spills and releases of toxic
materials and cleaning up contaminated properties.
The Agency is especially concerned about threats to
our most sensitive populations, such as children, the
elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases.
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, or Superfund)1 and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)2 provide the
legal authority for most of EPA's work toward this
goal. The Agency and its partners use Superfund
authority to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites; return the land to productive
use; and maximize the participation of potentially
responsible parties in cleanup efforts. Under RCRA,
EPA works in partnership with states and Tribes to
address risks associated with leaking underground
storage tanks and with the generation and
management of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
EPA also uses authorities provided under the
Clean Air Act,3Clean Water Act,4 and Oil Pollution
Act of 19905 to protect against spills and releases of
hazardous materials. Controlling the many risks
posed by accidental and intentional releases of
harmful substances presents a significant challenge to
protecting the land. EPA's approach integrates
prevention, preparedness, and response activities to
minimize these risks. Spill prevention activities keep
harmful substances from being released to the
environment. Improving its readiness to respond to
emergencies, through training, development of clear
authorities, and provision of proper equipment, will
ensure that EPA is adequately prepared to minimize
contamination and harm to the environment when
spills do occur.
In FY 2005, EPA will maintain its focus on
three themes established in FY 2004, and one
additional theme on emergency preparedness,
response and homeland security, in achieving its
objectives:
• Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy
Recovery: EPA's strategy for reducing waste
generation and increasing recycling is based on
(1) establishing and expanding partnerships with
businesses, industries, states, communities, and
consumers; (2) stimulating infrastructure
development, environmentally responsible
behavior by product manufacturers, users, and
disposers ("product stewardship"), and new
technologies; and (3) helping businesses,
government, institutions, and consumers by
education, outreach, training, and technical
assistance.
• One Cleanup Program: Through the "One
Cleanup Program" the Agency is looking across
its programs to bring consistency and enhanced
effectiveness to site cleanups. The Agency will
work with its partners and stakeholders to
enhance coordination, planning, and
1 42 U.S. Code 9601-9675
2 42 U.S. Code 6901-6992k
3 42 U.S. Code 7401-767Iq
4 33 U.S. Code 1251-1387
5 33 U.S. Code 2701-2761
III-l
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
communication across the full range of Federal,
state, Tribal, and local cleanup programs. This
effort will improve the pace, efficiency, and
effectiveness of site cleanups, as well as more
fully integrate land reuse and continued use into
cleanup programs. The Agency will promote
information technologies that describe waste site
cleanup and revitalization information in ways
that keep the public and stakeholders fully
informed. Finally, the Agency will develop
environmental outcome performance measures
that report progress among all cleanup programs,
such as the number of acres able to be reused
after site cleanup. A crucial element to this
effort is a national dialogue, currently underway,
on the future of Superfund and other EPA waste
cleanup programs.
• Revitalization: The Agency's broad promotion
of the successes of the Brownfields and other
waste programs focuses on restoring and revising
contaminated lands. The Land Revitalization
Initiative complements the Agency's traditional
cleanup programs by focusing on solutions that
improve the quality of life and economy of
affected communities. Front end planning for
the final, productive use of contaminated lands
enables the cleanup programs, communities and
interested stakeholders to more easily and
quickly make cleanup decisions. This
integration of land reuse planning with the
traditional cleanup processes will lead to faster,
more efficient cleanups.
• Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Homeland Security: EPA has a major role in
reducing the risk to human health and the
environment posed by accidental or intentional
releases of harmful substances and oil. EPA will
work to improve its ability to effectively respond
to these incidents, working closely with other
federal agencies within the National Response
System.
Reducing and Recycling Waste
The Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC) represents a major national effort to find
flexible yet protective ways to conserve our valuable
natural resources by reducing waste, recycling, and
recovering energy.6 Through the RCC, EPA
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste. Resource Conservation Challenge Web
Site:
challenges all Americans to make purchasing and
disposal decisions that conserve natural resources,
save energy, reduce costs, and preserve the
environment for future generations.
Establishing and Expanding Partnerships:
EPA will establish and expand its partnerships with
industry, states, and other entities to reduce waste and
to develop and deliver tools that can help businesses,
manufacturers, and consumers. Nationally-
recognized programs, such as WasteWise,7 which
uses partnerships to encourage waste prevention and
recycling, will serve as models for new alliances
among federal, state, and local governments and
businesses that capitalize on voluntary efforts to
reduce waste and increase recycling.
EPA will also continue to help its Tribal
partners improve practices for managing solid waste
on Indian lands. EPA has direct implementation
responsibility for the RCRA hazardous waste and
Underground Storage Tank programs in Indian
country. Recognizing the unique challenges
encountered in Indian country, EPA will work with
Tribes on a government-to-government basis that
affirms the federal government's vital trust
responsibility and the importance of conserving
natural resources for cultural uses. EPA will conduct
joint projects to upgrade Tribal solid waste
management infrastructure, developing plans, codes
and ordinances, recycling programs, and other
alternatives to open dumping. These efforts will help
to prevent open dumping in Indian country in the
future and allow clean up of existing dumps, reducing
the risks that such dumps pose to human health and
the environment.
Stimulating Infrastructure Development.
Product Stewardship, and New Technologies:
Another key strategy for reducing waste is fostering
development of infrastructure that will make it easier
for businesses and consumers to reduce the waste
they generate; acquire and use recycled materials;
and purchase products containing recovered
materials. For example, EPA has established
voluntary product stewardship partnerships with
manufacturers, retailers, governmental, and
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/index.ht
m. Washington, D.C. Last updated August 21, 2003.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste. WasteWise Program Web Site, About
Waste Wise Page:
http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/wrr/cbuild.htm.
Washington, D.C. Last updated September 27, 2002.
III-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
nongovernmental organizations to reduce the impacts
that electronics and carpets can have on the
environment throughout their lifecycles. EPA
continues to promote the development of new and
better recycling technologies and explore ways to
obtain energy or products from waste.
Providing Education. Outreach. Training.
and Technical Assistance: EPA works with major
retailers, electronics manufacturers, and the
amusement and motion picture industries to
revitalize, create, and display conservation, waste
prevention, and recycling messages. These activities
encourage smarter, more environmentally responsible
behavior by consumers, young people, and
underserved communities. The Agency and its
partners design activities that encourage students and
teachers to start innovative recycling programs and
develop unique tools and projects to promote waste
reduction, recycling, and neighborhood revitalization
in Hispanic and African-American communities and
on Indian lands.
Managing Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum
Products Properly
Recognizing that some hazardous wastes
cannot yet be completely eliminated or recycled, the
RCRA program works to reduce the risks of exposure
to hazardous wastes by maintaining a "cradle-to-
grave" approach to waste management.
Preventing Hazardous Releases from RCRA
Facilities: EPA's strategy for addressing hazardous
wastes that must be treated or stored is to achieve
greater efficiencies at waste management facilities
through more focused permitting processes and
tighter standards where appropriate. EPA works with
state, Tribal, and local government partners to ensure
that hazardous waste management facilities have
approved controls in place and continues to strive for
safe waste management.
EPA will work with the authorized states—
specifically those with a large number of facilities
lacking approved controls in place— to resolve issues
and transfer best practices from other states. EPA
also plans to study the universe of unpermitted
facilities and work with states to identify and resolve
issues that may be preventing key categories of
facilities from obtaining permits or putting other
approved controls in place. To achieve greater
efficiencies at facilities that treat or store hazardous
waste, the Agency will promote innovative
technologies that streamline permitting processes and
improve protection of human health and the
environment.
Reducing Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Combustion: EPA continues to develop and issue
regulations on emission standards for hazardous
waste combustion facilities. Implementation of these
regulations is key to reducing the emission of
dioxins, furans, paniculate matter, and acid gases.
Within 2 years from the date when EPA issues new
limits, facilities will conduct emission tests to
demonstrate reductions. Additional periodic tests
will ensure continued compliance with the limits
established for emissions.
Preventing Releases from Underground
Storage Tank Systems: EPA recognizes that the size
and diversity of the regulated community put state
authorities in the best position to regulate
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and to set
priorities. RCRA Subtitle I allows state UST
programs approved by EPA to operate in lieu of the
federal program.8 Except in Indian country, even
states that have not received formal state program
approval from EPA are in most cases the primary
implementing agencies and receive annual grants
from EPA.
While the frequency and severity of releases
from UST systems have been greatly reduced, EPA
and its state partners have observed that releases are
still occurring. EPA will continue to work with its
state and Tribal partners to prevent and detect
petroleum releases from USTs by ensuring that
compliance with detection prevention requirements
(spill, overfill, and corrosion protection) are a
national priority. While the vast majority of the
approximately 683,000 active USTs have the
regulatory equipment, significant work remains to
ensure that UST owners and operators maintain and
operate their systems properly.9 In FY2005, the
Agency will continue its performance evaluation of
new or upgraded UST systems to better and more
quickly identify releases and their causes. The
Agency will also continue to identify opportunities
for improving UST system performance.
To protect our Nation's groundwater and
drinking water from petroleum releases, EPA will
8 42 U.S. Code 9601-6992k
9 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,
EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
Underground Storage Tank Division Directors in
EPA Regions 1-10. June 19, 2003. FA2003 Semi
Annual (Mid-Year) Activity Report
m-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
continue to support state programs; strengthen
partnerships among stakeholders; and provide
technical and compliance assistance, and training to
promote and enforce UST facilities' compliance. In
addition, EPA will continue its work to obtain states'
commitments to increase their inspection and
enforcement presence if state-specific goals are not
met. The Agency and states will use innovative
compliance approaches, along with outreach and
education tools, to bring more tanks into compliance.
The Agency will also provide guidance to
foster the use of new technology to enhance
compliance. For example, the presence of methyl-
tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) in gasoline increases the
importance of preventing and rapidly detecting
releases, since MTBE cleanups can cost 100 percent
more than cleanups involving other gasoline
contaminants.10 The Agency will focus its efforts on
reducing UST releases and increasing early detection
of petroleum products, including MTBE, by further
evaluating the performance of compliant UST
systems.
Preparing for and Responding to Emergencies
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. Under the National Response System
(NRS), EPA evaluates and responds to thousands of
releases annually. The NRS is a multi-agency
preparedness and response mechanism that includes
the following key components: the National
Response Center, the National Response Team
(NRT) which is composed of 16 Federal agencies, 13
Regional Response Teams, and Federal On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs). These organizations work with
state and local officials to develop and maintain
contingency plans that will enable the Nation to
respond effectively to hazardous substance and oil
emergencies. When an incident occurs, these groups
coordinate with the OSC in charge to ensure that all
necessary resources, such as personnel and
equipment, are available and that containment,
cleanup, and disposal activities proceed quickly,
efficiently, and effectively. EPA's primary role in
the NRS is to serve as the Federal OSC for spills and
releases in the inland zone. As a result of NRS
efforts, the Nation has successfully contained many
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission. 2000. A Survey of Site Experiences
with MTBE Contamination at LUST Sites. Web Site:
http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.
major oil spills and releases of hazardous substances,
minimizing the adverse impacts on human health and
the environment.
Preparing for Emergencies: Preparedness
on a national level is essential to ensure that
emergency responders are able to deal with multiple,
large-scale emergencies, including those that may
involve chemicals, oil, biological agents, or
radiological incidents. Over the next several years,
EPA will enhance its core emergency response
program to respond quickly and effectively to
chemical, oil, biological, and radiological releases.
EPA also will improve coordination mechanisms to
respond to simultaneous, large-scale national
emergencies, including homeland security incidents.
The Agency will focus its efforts on Regional
Response Teams and coordination among Regions;
health and safety issues, including provision of
clothing that protects and identifies responders,
training, and exercise; establishment of delegation
and warrant authorities; and response readiness,
including equipment, transportation, and outreach.
The criteria for excellence in the core emergency
response program will ensure a high level of overall
readiness throughout the Agency and improve its
ability to support multi-Regional responses.
In addition to enhancing its readiness
capabilities, EPA will work to improve internal and
external coordination and communication
mechanisms. For example, as part of the National
Incident Coordination Team, EPA will continue to
improve its policies, plans, procedures, and decision-
making processes for coordinating responses to
national emergencies. Under the Continuity of
Operations/Continuity of Government program, EPA
will upgrade and test plans, facilities, training, and
equipment to ensure that essential government
business can continue during a catastrophic
emergency. NRT capabilities are being expanded to
coordinate interagency activities during large-scale
responses. EPA will coordinate its activities with the
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), other Federal
agencies, and state and local governments. EPA will
also continue to clarify its roles and responsibilities
so that Agency security programs are consistent with
the national homeland security strategy.
Responding to Hazardous Substance
Releases and Oil Spills: Each year, EPA personnel
assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands
of releases, whether accidental, deliberate, or
naturally occurring. These incidents range from
III-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
small spills at chemical or oil facilities to national
disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, to
terrorist events like the 2001 World Trade Center and
anthrax attacks, to the 2003 Columbia shuttle
tragedy.
EPA will work to improve its capability to
respond effectively to incidents that may involve
harmful chemical, oil, biological, and radiological
substances. The Agency will explore improvements
in field and personal protection equipment and
response training and exercises; review response data
provided in the "after-action" reports prepared by
EPA emergency responders following a release; and
examine "lessons learned" reports to identify which
activities work and which need to be improved.
Application of this information and other data will
advance the Agency's state-of-the-art emergency
response operations.
Preventing Oil Spills: An important
component of EPA's land strategy is to prevent oil
spills from reaching the Nation's waters. Under the
Oil Pollution Act,11 the Agency requires certain
facilities (defined in 40 CFR 112.2) to develop and
implement spill prevention, control, and
countermeasure (SPCC) plans. SPCC plans ensure
that facilities put in place containment and other
countermeasures to prevent oil spills from reaching
navigable waters. Facilities that are unable to
provide secondary containment, such as berms
around an oil storage tank, must provide a spill
contingency plan that details cleanup measures to be
taken if a spill occurs. Compliance with these
requirements reduces the number of oil spills that
reach navigable waters and prevents detrimental
effects on human health and the environment should
a spill occur.
Controlling Risks to Human Health and the
Environment at Contaminated Sites
Leaching contaminants can foul drinking
water in underground aquifers used for wells or
surface waters used by public water intakes.
Contaminated soil can result in human ingestion or
dermal absorption of harmful substances.
Contamination can also affect subsistence resources,
including resources subject to special protections
through treaties between Federal and Tribal
governments. Furthermore, because of the risks it
poses, contaminated land may not be available for
use.
U.S. Code,6901-6992k
EPA and its partners work to clean up
contaminated land to levels sufficient to control risks
to human health and the environment and to return
the land to productive use. The Agency's cleanup
activities, some new and some well-established,
include removing contaminated soil, capping or
containing contamination in place, pumping and
treating groundwater, and bioremediation.
EPA uses a variety of tools to accomplish
cleanups: permits, enforcement actions, consent
agreements, Federal Facility Agreements, and many
other mechanisms. As part of EPA's One Cleanup
Program Initiative, all levels of government will
work together to ensure that appropriate cleanup tools
are used; that resources, activities, and results are
coordinated with partners and stakeholders and
communicated to the public effectively; and that
cleanups are protective and contribute to community
revitalization. This approach reflects EPA's efforts
to coordinate across all of its cleanup programs,
while maintaining the flexibility needed to
accommodate differences in program authorities and
approaches.
EPA fulfills its cleanup and waste
management responsibilities on Tribal lands by
acknowledging Tribal sovereignty and recognizing
Tribal governments as being the most appropriate
authorities for setting standards, making policy
decisions, and managing programs consistent with
Agency standards and regulations.
Through strong policy, leadership, program
administration, and a dedicated workforce, EPA's
cleanup programs will merge sound science, cutting-
edge technology, quality environmental information,
and stakeholder involvement to protect the Nation
from the harmful effects of contaminated property.
To accomplish its cleanup goals, the Agency
continues to forge partnerships and develop outreach
and education strategies.
EPA and its partners follow four key steps to
accomplish cleanups and control risks to human
health and the environment: assessment,
stabilization, selection of appropriate remedies, and
implementation of remedies. The Agency will
continue to work with Federal, state, Tribal, and local
government partners at each step of the process to
identify facilities and sites requiring attention and to
monitor changes in priorities. For example, EPA is
collecting Tribal program baseline data for the
Superfund program and will modify the Superfund
data system to more accurately track sites of concern
to Tribes, along with those situated on Indian lands.
m-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
As systems and approaches change, cleanup
programs will revise guidance appropriately.
Usable land is a valuable resource.
However, where contamination presents a real or
perceived threat to human health and the
environment, options for future land use at that site
may be limited. EPA's cleanup programs have set a
national goal of returning formerly contaminated
sites to long-term, sustainable, and productive use.
This goal creates greater impetus for selecting and
implementing remedies that, in addition to providing
clear environmental benefits, will support future land
use providing greater economic and social benefits.
Maximizing Potentially Responsible Party
Participation at Superfund Sites:
Enforcement authorities play a critical role
in all Agency cleanup programs. However, they have
an additional and 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 the federal government for cleanups
financed by the Trust Fund. EPA will continue to
pursue the following two strategies for limiting the
use of trust funds.
Applying Superfund "Enforcement First":
Historically, EPA has achieved at least $6 in private-
party cleanup commitments for every $1 spent on
enforcement. The Agency will continue to use its
enforcement authorities to achieve this end. The
Superfund program's "Enforcement First" strategy
will allow EPA to focus limited Trust Fund resources
on sites where viable, potentially responsible parties
either do not exist or lack the funds or capabilities to
conduct the cleanup. By taking enforcement actions
at sites where viable, liable parties do exist, EPA will
continue to leverage private-party dollars so that
Trust Fund money is used only when absolutely
necessary to clean up hazardous waste sites.
Recovering Costs: Cost recovery is another
way to leverage private-party resources through
enforcement. Under Superfund, EPA has the
authority to compel private parties to pay back Trust
Fund money spent to conduct cleanup activities.
EPA will continue its efforts to address 100 percent
of the Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites
with unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater
than $200,000 and to report the value of costs
recovered.
Research
The FY 2005 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
accelerating scientifically-defensible and cost-
effective decisions for cleanup at complex sites,
mining sites, marine spills, and Brownfields in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act
(CERCLA).
The Agency will conduct research to: 1)
improve the range and scientific foundation for
contaminated sediment remedy selection options
through improved site characterization, and increased
understanding of different remedial options; 2)
determine the performance and cost benefit of
alternative groundwater remediation technologies and
provide tools for characterizing and assessing
groundwater contamination to program offices for
use in state and local remedial decisions; 3) provide
tools and methods that will allow the Agency to
accurately and efficiently assess, remediate, and
manage soil and land contamination; and 4) provide
tools, methods, and models, and technical support to
characterize the extent of multimedia site
contamination.
Multimedia decision-making, waste
management, and combustion constitute the three
major areas of research under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in FY 2005,
as the Agency works toward preventing releases
through proper facility management. Multimedia
research will focus on resource conservation (e.g.,
electronic waste recycling and waste-derived
products), corrective action, and multimedia
modeling. Waste management research will develop
more cost-effective ways to manage/recycle non-
hazardous wastes and will examine other remediation
technologies, while combustion research will
continue to focus on characterizing and controlling
emissions from bioreactors and industrial combustion
systems.
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure a
high-quality waste research program at EPA. The
Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an
independent chartered Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) committee, meets annually to conduct
an in-depth review and analysis of EPA's Science
and Technology account. The RSAC provides its
findings to the House Science Committee and sends a
written report on the findings to EPA's Administrator
after every annual review. Moreover, EPA's Board
of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) provides counsel to
m-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) on the operation
of ORD's research program. Also, under the Science
to Achieve Results (STAR) program, all research
projects are selected for funding through a rigorous
competitive external peer review process designed to
ensure that only the highest quality efforts receive
funding support. Our scientific and technical work
products must also undergo either internal or external
peer review, with major or significant products
requiring external peer review. The Agency's Peer
Review Handbook (2nd Edition) codifies procedures
and guidance for conducting peer review.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND FY 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Preserve Land. By 2008, 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.
Restore Land. By 2008, 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.
Enhance Science and Research. Through 2008,
provide and apply sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research
and developing a better understanding and
characterization of environmental outcomes under
GoalS.
HIGHLIGHTS
In FY 2005, EPA and its partners will
preserve and restore the land by reducing, recycling,
and managing wastes, preventing and responding to
releases of harmful substances, and cleaning up
contaminated land. The following accomplishments
are examples of what has been done by the Agency to
achieve these purposes:
• completed 303,120 cleanups of
confirmed releases from Federally-regulated
LUSTs since 1987;
• conducted over 7,900 removal response
actions from 1982 through January 6, 2004;
• completed clean up construction at 890
Superfund National Priorities List Sites
through January 6, 2004;
• assessed over 45,300 potential
Superfund sites through January 6, 2004;
• removed more than 33,400 sites from
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) waste site
list;
• responded to or monitored 300 oil spills
in a typical year;
• 699 construction projects are ongoing at
over 430 sites;
• expanded the Waste Wise Partnership to
more than 1,300 partners who recycled over
9 million tons of waste, and prevented over
400,000 tons of waste;
• enrolled 50 Coal Combustion Products
Partners, who are investigating ways to
increase the use of coal combustion products
(CCPs) in construction and to promote other
beneficial uses of CCPs;
• determined that an investment of $1
million in Jobs Through Recycling grants
helped businesses create more than 1,700
jobs and $290 million in capital investment;
• provided over $6.0 million to thirty-one
Tribes to clean up open dumps and $3.1
million to 47 Tribes to develop hazardous
waste management programs through the
Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup;
• developed e-permitting tools to expedite
and simplify the permitting process and
provide better public access to permitting
information;
• financial assurance regulations reduced
the number of sites that must be cleaned up
under either state or Federal authorities
(such as Superfund removals) by requiring
facilities to have financial assurance for
third party liability, closure, and completion
of corrective action;
m-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
• 83 percent of hazardous waste facilities
have approved controls (permits) in place,
exceeding the 2005 goal of 80 percent;
• the "worst facilities first" strategy
resulted in over 1,200 facilities achieving
the Current Human Exposures Under
Control environmental indicator goal and
over 1,000 facilities achieving the Migration
of Contaminated Groundwater Under
Control environmental indicator goal;
• secured greater than $20 billion in PRP
commitments, through response and cost
recovery settlements, over the life of the
Superfund program; and
• resolved potential liability of 24,700
small volume waste contributing parties
through more than 475 de minimis
settlements.
In FY 2005, contaminated sites research
will: 1) reduce uncertainties associated with
soil/groundwater sampling and analysis; 2) reduce
the time and cost associated with site characterization
and site remediation activities; and 3) develop and
demonstrate more effective and less costly
remediation technologies involving complex sites and
hard-to-treat wastes. Other proposed work will
enhance and accelerate current contaminated
sediments research efforts, providing the data needed
to make and support crucial decisions on high impact
and high visibility sites. The Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program fosters the
development and use of lower cost and more
effective characterization and monitoring
technologies, as well as risk management remediation
technologies for sediments, soils, and groundwater.
In FY 2005, EPA will complete at least four SITE
demonstrations, with emphasis on non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs) and sediments.
Waste management research in FY 2005
will work to advance the multimedia modeling and
uncertainty/sensitivity analyses methodologies that
support core RCRA program needs as well as
emerging RCRA resource conservation needs. Waste
management research will also be conducted to
improve the management of both solid and hazardous
wastes.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
EPA's ability to respond as the Federal On-
Scene Coordinator for releases of harmful substances
in the inland zone will be affected by several external
factors. The National Response System ensures that
EPA will respond when necessary, but relies heavily
on the ability of responsible parties and state, local,
and Tribal agencies to respond to most emergencies.
The need for EPA to respond is a function of the
quantity and severity of spills that occur, as well as
the capacity of state, local, and Tribal agencies to
address spills.
EPA's ability to respond to homeland
security incidents may be affected by circumstances
surrounding each event. For instance, if travel or
communication is severely impeded, EPA's response
may be delayed and its efficiency compromised.
Also, in the case of a single large-scale incident,
removal program resources will most likely be
concentrated on that response, thus reducing EPA's
ability to address other emergency releases. In severe
cases, EPA's current emergency response workforce
and resources may not be sufficient to address a large
number of simultaneous large-scale incidents.
A number of external factors could also
affect the Agency's ability to achieve its objectives
for cleanup and prevention. These factors include
Agency reliance on private-party response and state
and Tribal partnerships, development of new
environmental technologies, work by other Federal
agencies, and statutory barriers. Achieving the
release prevention objectives and attaining FY 2005
targets will depend heavily on the participation of
states that have been authorized or approved to be the
primary implementors of these programs.
Attaining EPA's waste reduction and
recycling objectives will depend on the participation
of Federal agencies, states, Tribes, local
governments, industries, and the general public in
partnerships aimed at reducing waste generation and
increasing recycling rates. EPA provides national
leadership in the areas of waste reduction and
recycling to facilitate public and private partnerships
that can provide the impetus for government,
businesses, and citizens to join in the campaign to
significantly reduce the amount of waste generated
and ultimately sent for disposal. Further, both
domestic and foreign economic stresses can
adversely affect markets for recovered materials.
State programs are primarily responsible for
implementing the RCRA Hazardous Waste and UST
m-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
programs. EPA's ability to achieve its goals for these
programs depends on the strength of state programs,
including the level of funding contributed by states to
these programs.
The Agency's ability to achieve its goals for
Superfund construction completion is partially
dependent upon the performance of cleanup activities
by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Energy (DOE). In addition to
construction completion, the Agency must rely on the
efforts of DOD and DOE to establish and maintain
Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and Site
Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs). RABs and
SSABs provide a forum for stakeholders to offer
advice and recommendations on the restoration of
Federal Facilities. Program success also partly
depends on private party response and State
partnerships, development of new environmental
technology, work by other federal agencies, and
statutory barriers. Further, EPA also coordinates its
activities with other entities, such as PRP
negotiations and agreements with states and Tribes.
m-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Resource Summary
(Dollars in thousands)
Land Preservation and Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$1,706,796.3
$205,443.3
$1,454,821.4
$46,531.6
4,675.2
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,779,473.5
$210,990.1
$1,508,646.8
$59,836.6
4,744.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,798,171.0
$237,149.8
$1,503,465.6
$57,555.6
4,708.5
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres
Bud
$18,697.5
$26,159.7
($5,181.3)
($2,280.9)
-36.4
III-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Preserve Land
By 2008, 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.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Preserve Land
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$205,443.3
$115,732.5
$950.0
$1,398.3
$85,944.2
$466.5
$951.6
717.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$210,990.1
$121,103.9
$0.0
$1,478.0
$86,436.9
$809.4
$1,161.9
740.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$237,149.8
$121,177.4
$0.0
$1,571.1
$112,236.9
$807.8
$1,356.6
725.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$26,159.7
$73.5
$0.0
$93.1
$25,800.0
($1.6)
$194.7
-15.5
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage
Tanks
Compliance Assistance and Centers
LUST / UST
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$364.9
$2,252.2
$73,923.5
$11,655.8
$401.9
$6,765.8
$59,706.6
$12,107.4
$38,265.2
$205,443.3
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
$74,486.9
$11,950.0
$586.5
$7,144.2
$67,381.6
$8,637.4
$40,803.5
$210,990.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$0.0
$74,286.9
$37,950.0
$585.3
$7,094.5
$67,422.3
$10,107.9
$39,702.9
$237,149.8
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
($200.0)
$26,000.0
($1.2)
($49.7)
$40.7
$1,470.5
($1,100.6)
$26,159.7
III-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
OBJECTIVE: PRESERVE LAND
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
In 2005 Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 35% or 81 million tons) of municipal solid waste
from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste
at 4.5 pounds per day.
In 2004 Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 34% or 79 million tons) of municipal solid waste
from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste
at 4.5 pounds per day.
In 2003 End of year FY 2003 data will be available in December 2005 to verify that an additional 1% (for a
cumulative total of 32% or 74 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion,
and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day was diverted.
Performance Measures:
Millions of tons of municipal solid waste
diverted.
Daily per capita generation of municipal solid
waste.
FY 2003
Actuals
Data available in
December 2005
Data available in
December 2005
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
79
4.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
81
4.5
million tons
Ibs. MSW
Baseline: An analysis conducted in FY 2001 shows approximately 68 million tons (29.2%) of municipal solid
waste diverted and 4.4 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation. While data indicate that the growth in
recycling rates has slowed, the target of a 35% recycling rate is being maintained.
Waste and Petroleum Management Controls
In 2005 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
In 2004 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
In 2003 For UST facilities, 72% are in operational compliance with leak detection, and 79% are in operational
compliance with spill prevention requirements. An additional 4.1% of the RCRA facilities have
permits or approved controls.
Ill-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste
management facilities with permits or other
approved controls.
Number of confirmed UST releases nationally.
Increase in UST facilities in significant
operational compliance with leak detection
requirements.
Increase in UST facilities in significant
operational compliance with spill, overfill and
corrosion protection regulations.
Percent increase of UST facilities in significant
operational compliance with both detection and
release prevention (spill overflow, corrosion
protection) requirements.
FY 2003
Actuals
4.1%
-8%
-6%
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
2.4%
<10,000
4%
4%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
2.8%
<10,000
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
1%
percentage
pts.
UST
releases
percentage
pts.
percentage
pts.
percent
Baseline: EPA did not increase by 3% to 80% for the leak detection requirements or with spill, overfill and
corrosion protection requirements by 3% to 85% in FY 2003. The FY 2003 actuals were 72% for UST
facilities in significant operational compliance with leak detection requirements; 79% for UST
facilities in significant operational compliance with spill, overfill and corrosion protection. Although
the Agency has been working with the states to improve their reporting of both measures, the
compliance rates for both have been steady or declining. There is some variability in reporting by
states because some states have more stringent requirements, while other states have targeted non-
compliant UST facilities so the facilities that are inspected are not representative of all facilities in the
state. A baseline for the new combined measure will be determined in FY 2004, and is currently
estimated to be approximately 60%. Between FY 1999 and FY 2003, confirmed UST releases
averaged 13,600. By the end of FY 2003, 83.1% of approximately 2,750 RCRA facilities had permits
or other approved controls in place.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
• Daily per capita generation
• Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted
Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce. EPA does not maintain a database for
this information.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste source reduction and 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 solid waste generation and recycling rate data from various industries.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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.
Ill-13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop estimates of MSW generation, recovery and
discards. Example assumptions (from pages 141-142 of year 2000 "Characterization Report" include: Textiles used
as rags are assumed to enter the waste stream the same year the textiles are discarded. Some products (e.g.,
newspapers and packaging) normally have short lifetime; products are assumed to be discarded in the year they are
produced.
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 then reviewed by a number of experts for accuracy and soundness.
Data Quality Review: The report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling and per capita
municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted among experts.
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.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and recycling are widely reported and
accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the data or the methodology have been identified or are necessary.
EPA plans to develop regulations for improving reporting of source reduction activities by TRI reporting facilities.
References: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1999 Facts and Figures, EPA, July 2001 (EPA 530-R-01-
014), http://www.epa.gov/osw/index.htm
FY 2005 Performance Measure
Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls in
place.
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the
national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the States. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in
regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program. 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. RCRAInfo has
several different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data quality related to
timeliness and accuracy. 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 (at http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/) 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
system changes and user needs. The data that support the performance for the GPRA goals is of far better quality
than the handler data in general (including generators). Determination of whether or not the GPRA annual goals are
met is based on the legal and operating status codes for each unit (e.g., a facility can have more than one unit). In
1999 and 2000 there was a focused effort to update this information for the baseline facilities in RCRAInfo.
RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this information and is a focal point in planning from the local to national level.
Ill-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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 filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste
sites.
Data Quality Review: The Government Accounting Office's (GAO's) 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste
Information System http://frebgate access gpo gov/cgibin/ (This historical document is available on the
Government Printing Office Website) reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and
states in managing their hazardous waste program. Recommendations coincide 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.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified. The 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 identification data may become out-of-date because RCRA does not mandate annual or
other periodic notification by the regulated entity when site name, ownership and contact information changes.
Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by their IDs and those should not change even during ownership changes.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW 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 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 using commercial off-the-shelf software to
develop reports from database tables.
References: http://www.epa.gov/osw/index.htm
FY2005 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and
release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements.
• Number of confirmed releases at UST facilities nationally
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain a national database;
the states maintain their respective databases and/or spreadsheets.
FY 2004 will be the first year of establishing the baseline for the new combined measure, the percentage of UST
facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention (spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection), which will be reported in the FY2005 Annual Report. EPA has previously
reported progress in meeting each of these requirements separately. The new combined measure cannot be
recalculated using the previous separate measures because there hasn't been a baseline prior to FY 2004. As there is
no database for this information, a requirement to recalculate the baseline would be overly burdensome to the states.
Data Source: Designated state agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA's Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: States submit their performance on an EPA-supplied form for review against national trends
and historical data. Previously reported percentages and/or totals are compared to current values and states are
notified of any discrepancies and/or anomalies.
Ill-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Quality Review: EPA resolves any discrepancies and/or anomalies in the reported information through
written explanations and/or justifications from the states and discussions.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data.
The quality of the states' data depends on the completeness and accuracy of states' internal recordkeeping.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2003 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 19, 2003 (updated semi-annually)
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriation
Act, Public Law 105-275; 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1998)
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended; (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k) Public Law 94-
580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous Waste Amendments of 1984, (Subtitle I);
Section 8001 (a); Tribal Grants: PL 105-276
III-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Restore Land
By 2008, 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.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Restore Land
Environmental Program & Management
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$1,454,821.4
$77,013.7
$2,308.5
$33,997.8
$70,263.9
$14,701.7
$879.3
$1,255,656.6
3,772.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,508,646.8
$78,811.3
$4,179.5
$31,913.1
$71,005.4
$15,289.4
$1,069.1
$1,306,379.0
3,822.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,503,465.6
$77,204.5
$2,594.2
$32,113.1
$71,000.5
$15,500.6
$1,082.2
$1,303,970.4
3,796.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($5,181.3)
($1,606.8)
($1,585.3)
$200.00
($4.9)
$211.2
$13.1
($2,408.6)
-25.9
III-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
LUST / UST
Civil Enforcement
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
RCRA: Corrective Action
Superfund: Emergency Response and
Removal
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Federal Facilities lAGs
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal
Agencies
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$3,509.4
$31,017.3
$198.6
$12,650.6
$1,969.7
$37,556.3
$55,798.7
$12,543.8
$36,816.6
$217,880.1
$158,487.3
$17,926.8
$28,838.1
$6,749.0
$656,387.4
$10,178.8
$166,319.4
$1,454,827.9
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$31,913.1
$279.9
$10,581.0
$2,163.6
$27,339.3
$58,399.1
$12,897.5
$40,363.8
$199,803.9
$155,307.5
$10,130.1
$32,744.2
$10,022.6
$725,751.1
$10,676.0
$180,274.1
$1,508,646.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$32,113.1
$276.6
$10,499.6
$2,135.6
$27,163.2
$58,450.0
$13,064.7
$40,975.6
$201,088.0
$155,537.2
$10,091.4
$32,182.0
$10,044.4
$719,249.8
$10,676.0
$179,918.4
$1,503,465.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$200.0
($3.3)
($81.4)
($28.0)
($176.1)
$50.9
$167.2
$611.8
$1,284.1
$229.7
($38.7)
($562.2)
$21.8
($6,501.3)
$0.0
($355.8)
($5,181.3)
III-18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
In 2005 Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by
improving our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
In 2004 Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by
improving our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
In 2003 EPA responded to or monitored 322 significant oil spills in the inland zone and Superfund
accomplished 380 removal response actions.
Performance Measures:
Number of Superfund removal response actions
initiated.
Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
Number of inspections and exercises conducted
at oil storage facilities that are required to have
Facility Response Plans.
Percentage of emergency response and homeland
security readiness improvement.
FY 2003
Actuals
380
322
82.3%
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
350
300
10%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
350
300
360
10%
removals
spills
inspections/
exercises
percent
Baseline: Through FY2003, Superfund had initiated approximately 7,900 removal response actions. EPA
typically responds to or monitors 300 oil spill cleanups per year. In FY2003, EPA completed
evaluations of core emergency response capabilities in each region, and the average score from these
was 823 out of a possible 1,000 points so 82.3 percent is used as the baseline for improvements.
Between FY 1997 and FY 2003, approximately 31 percent (or 1,862) of the nearly 6,000 oil storage
facilities required to have Facility Response Plans were inspected.
Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land
In 2005 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through
cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land available for reuse.
In 2004 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or sites through
cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and make land available for reuse.
In 2003 Superfund made 917 final site assessment decisions, controlled human exposures at 28 sites and
groundwater migration at 54 sites, and achieved 40 construction completions. The RCRA program
controlled human exposures at 230 sites and groundwater migration at 175 sites. There were 18,518
LUST cleanups.
Ill-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Number of Superfund final site assessment
decisions.
Number of Superfund construction completions.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with
human exposures controlled.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites
with groundwater migration controlled.
Number of final remedies (cleanup targets)
selected at Superfund sites.
Number of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups completed.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with
human exposures to toxins controlled.
Number of high priority RCRA facilities with
toxic releases to groundwater controlled.
FY 2003
Actuals
917
40
28
54
18,518
230
175
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
475
40
10
10
20
21,000
166
129
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
500
40
10
10
20
21,000
225
203
assessments
completions
sites
sites
remedies
cleanups
facilities
facilities
Baseline: By the end of FY 2003, Superfund had initiated approximately 7,900 removal response actions,
controlled human exposures at 82% (1,227 of 1,494) of eligible NPL sites and controlled groundwater
migration at 65% (826 of 1,275) of eligible NPL sites, and completed construction at 58% (886) of the
NPL sites. Of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective Action high priority facilities, 73% (1,246) have human
exposures controlled, an increase from 1,018 facilities with human exposures controlled at the end of
FY 2002; and 61% (1,049) have groundwater migration controlled, an increase from 877 facilities with
groundwater migration controlled at the end of FY 2002. Furthermore, at the end of FY 2001 there
were 814 facilities with human exposures controlled and 737 facilities groundwater migration
controlled reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. At the end of FY 2003, 303,120
cleanups of confirmed releases from Federally-regulated leaking underground storage tanks were
completed since 1987. At the end of FY 2002, there was a universe of 1,103 Superfund sites with final
remedies selected. The Agency is currently evaluating this baseline and may adjust it downward in the
future.
Superfund Cost Recovery
In 2005 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from
PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with
a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2004 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from
PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with
a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2003 Ensured trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from
PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Addressed cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites
with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
111-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
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.
FY 2003
Actuals
100
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
100
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
100
Percent
Baseline: In FY 98 the Agency addressed 100 percent of cost recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total
past costs equal or greater than $200,000.
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation
In 2005 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 90 percent of
Superfund sites having a viable, liable responsible party other than the federal government.
In 2004 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 90 percent of
Superfund sites having a viable, liable responsible party other than the federal government.
In 2003 Maximized all aspects of PRP participation which included maintaining PRP work at 87% of the new
remedial construction starts at non-Federal Facility Superfund, and emphasized fairness in the
settlement process.
Performance Measures:
PRPs conduct 70% of the work at new
construction starts
Percentage of Superfund sites at which
settlement or enforcement action taken before
the start of RA.
FY 2003
Actuals
87
FY 2004
Pres.
Bud.
90
FY
2005
Pres.
Bud.
90
Percent
Percent
Baseline: In FY 98 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was
initiated by private parties. In FY2003, 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.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions.
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled.
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled.
• Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites.
• Number of Superfund construction completions.
• Number of Superfund removal response actions initiated.
m-21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System
(CERCLIS) is the database 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.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable within CERCLIS.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1)
Superfund Implementation Manual (SPIM), 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 such data users as Regional Information Management
Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit
Testing, an extensive QA check against report specifications; 5) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal Control
Plan, which includes: (a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into CERCLIS; (b) a review process to
ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by source documentation; (c) delegation of authorities for
approval of data input into CERCLIS; and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet
accomplishment definitions; and (6) a historical lockout feature has been added to 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.
CERCLIS 3/WasteLAN operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) OIRM Life Cycle Guidance; 2) OSRTI Quality Management Plan; 3)
Agency platform, software and hardware standards (NTSD); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in all contract
vehicles under which CERCLIS 3/WasteLAN is being developed and maintained; and 5) Agency security
procedures. In addition, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and
CERCLIS 3/WasteLAN outputs.
Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by General
Accounting Office (GAO), were done to assess the validity of the data in CERCLIS. The OIG audit report,
Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was
prepared to verify the accuracy of the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and the public. The
OIG report 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." Further information on this report are available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm. The
GAO's report, Superfund Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, was
prepared to verify the accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on sites' cleanup progress. The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS as of September 30, 1997, is accurate for 95
percent of the sites. Additional information on the Status of Sites may be obtained by visiting http://www.gao.gov.
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
weaknesses identified were caused by the lack of an effective quality assurance process and adequate internal
controls for CERCLIS data quality. The report provided 11 recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS
data quality. OSWER concurs with the recommendations contained in the audit, and many of the identified
problems have been corrected or actions that would address these recommendations are underway. Additional
information about this report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance measures. Typically, there
are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is
currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology - Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.
111-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002. The weaknesses identified were caused by the lack of an effective
quality assurance process and adequate internal controls over CERCLIS data quality. The report provided 11
recommendations with which OSWER concurs. Many of the identified problems have been corrected or actions that
would address these recommendations are underway, e.g., 1) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2 update was made to better
define the Headquarters and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and accomplishment data
in CERCLIS; 2) draft guidance from OCA (Other Cleanup Activity) subgroup, which outlines the conditions under
which sites are taken back from states when states have the lead but are not performing and 3) Pre-CERCLIS
Screening: A Data Entry Guide, which provides guidance to the regions for preventing entry of duplicate sites in
CERCLIS. The development and implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data has begun. This
process includes delineating quality assurance responsibilities in the program office and periodically selecting
random samples of CERCLIS data points to check against source documents in site files.
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort is currently underway to enhance CERCLIS,
with a focus on data collection and data analysis and how to best satisfy the current needs of the Superfund program.
Among other initiatives, this effort includes reviewing current and anticipated data needs. Items in CERCLIS that
are no longer needed will be deleted, and new items identified will be added. Strict standards for quality will be
enforced. During FY 2004, the CERCLIS database will be made Intranet accessible, and perhaps, Internet
accessible, using CITRIX. This will make it easier to access the database and will simplify the SNAPSHOT
process. This change will improve database reliability since there will no longer be 10 separate CERCLIS
installations on servers maintained by regional IRM shops. The Superfund eFacts system is a vital part of the
CERCLIS modernization efforts. The Superfund eFacts system is an e-Government solution design to give EPA
management and staff quick and easy access to important milestones relating to various aspects of the Superfund
program. In 2005, the Agency will continue its efforts begun in 1999 to improve the Superfund program's technical
information by increasing reliance upon CERCLIS support data systems, which incorporate more site remedy
selection, risk, removal response, and community involvement information. Efforts to share information among the
Federal, state, and Tribal programs to further enhance the Agency's efforts to efficiently identify, evaluate, and
remediate Superfund hazardous waste sites will continue. In 2005, the Agency will also establish data quality
objectives for program planning purposes and to formulate the organization's information needs for the next 5 years.
Adjustments will be made to EPA's current architecture and business processes to better meet those needs.
References: References include OIG audit reports, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030) and Information Technology - Comprehensive FY 2005 Performance Measures
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-
00016), http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm: and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), http://www.gao.gov. Other references include the Superfund/Oil Implementation Manuals
for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual, the Annual Performance Report to Congress, and the Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation's Information Management Center's Quality Assurance
Procedures for the Official Superfund Data Base, CERCLIS 3/WasteLAN.
FY 2005 Performance Measures
* Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed.
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain a national database;
the states maintain their respective databases and/or spreadsheets.
Data Source: Designated state agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA's Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
111-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: States submit their performance on an EPA-supplied form for review against national trends
and historical data. Previously reported percentages and/or totals are compared to current values and states are
notified of any discrepancies and/or anomalies.
Data Quality Review: EPA resolves any discrepancies and/or anomalies in the reported information through
written explanations and/or justifications from the states and discussions.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data.
The quality of the states' data depends on the completeness and accuracy of states' internal recordkeeping.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2003 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 19, 2003 (updated semi-annually)
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled
• High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) is the
national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the States. A "yes" or "no" entry is made in the database with respect to meeting
corrective action indicators. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in Regional and state
files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a Corrective Action
Module that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require, corrective actions. 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.
Human exposures controlled and toxic releases to groundwater controlled are used to summarize and report on the
facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA Corrective Action Program's highest priority facilities. The
environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA program's progress in getting highest priority contaminated
sites under control. Known and suspected sitewide 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 site (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination;
however, facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the current
environmental conditions.
QA/QC Procedures: 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). 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.
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 filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste
sites.
111-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Quality Review: GAO's 1995 Report on EPAs Hazardous Waste Information System
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/) reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the
states in managing their hazardous waste programs.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified. As discussed above, environmental indicator
determinations are made by the authorized states and EPA Regions based on a series of standard questions and
entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided guidance and training to states and Regions to help ensure
consistency in those determinations. High priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the
QA/QC procedures identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste 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 waste management practices by 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: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed whether national
RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their hazardous waste programs.
Recommendations coincide 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. This historical
document is available on the Government Printing Office Website (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/)
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of emergency response and homeland security readiness improvement.
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations are tabulated and stored
using standard software (WordPerfect, spreadsheets, etc.)
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys and interviews of personnel and managers in each
program office. The survey instrument was developed based upon Core Emergency Response (ER) elements, and
has been approved by EPA Headquarters and Regional managers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Core ER elements were developed over the last several years by the
EPA Removal Program to identify and clarify what is needed to ensure an excellent emergency response program.
The elements, definitions, and rationales were developed by staff and managers and have been presented to the
Administrator and other high level Agency managers. Based on the Core ER standards, evaluation forms and
criteria were established for EPA's Regional programs, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
Headquarters. These evaluation criteria identify what data need to be collected, and how that data translate into an
appropriate score for each Core ER element. The elements and evaluation criteria will be reviewed each year for
relevance to ensure that the programs have the highest standards of excellence and that the measurement clearly
reflects the level of readiness. The data are collected from each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters using a
systematic, objective process. Each evaluation team consists of managers and staff, from Headquarters and from
another EPA Regional office, with some portion of the team involved in all reviews for consistency and some
portion varying to ensure independence and objectivity. For instance, a team evaluating Region A might include
some or all of the following: a staff person from Headquarters who is participating in all reviews, a staff person
from Headquarters who is very familiar with Region A activities, a manager from Headquarters, and a staff person
and/or manager from Region B. One staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all the data to
determine the overall score for each Regional office, ERT, and Headquarters, and for determining an overall
National score.
m-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability"
Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods, Assumptions and Suitability)
during the data collection and analysis process. Additional data review will be conducted after the data has 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.
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, ERT, and Headquarters; and only twelve sets of data will be collected,
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: FY 2003 Core Emergency Response Report, based on Regional and Headquarters evaluations (for
internal EPA use only).
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have Facility Response
Plans
• Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System
(CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report Superfund site information. Historically,
oil program performance has been reported in CERCLIS; a new, more streamlined reporting system is being
developed in 2004 to store oil spill prevention, emergency preparedness and response information. Information
included in the new database will be similar to CERCLIS, but definitions and activities pertaining to oil will be
included to support oil spill program needs for FY 2004 and beyond.
Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and Regional offices enter data (Currently CERCLIS, has a
new system pending).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable within CERCLIS.
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: The Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual, 1987. This is being revised as part of the development of
the new database.
111-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for Superfund sites
with total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs
recovered.
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS)
Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and EPA's Regional offices enter data into CERCLIS
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data used to support this measure are collected on a fiscal year basis
only. Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support this measure are extracted
from the report.
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan, approved April
11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund/Oil
Implementation Manual (SPIM), a 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 such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive
QA check against report specifications; 5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA
tester to ensure that the report produces data in conformance with the report specifications; 6) Regional CERCLIS
Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes: a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS, b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by source
documentation, c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS, and, d) procedures to ensure
that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and 7) a historical lockout feature that has been
added to 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.
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLA 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 April 11, 2001
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 90 percent
of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the Federal government.
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS).
Data Source: Automated EPA system; headquarters and regional offices enter data into CERCLIS
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods used to collect the
information. The data used to support this measure are collected on a fiscal year basis only. Enforcement reports are
run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support this measure is extracted from the report.
111-27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan, approved April
11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place: 1) Superfund/Oil
Implementation Manual (SPIM), a 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 such data users as Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs),
program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive
QA check against report specifications; 5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA
tester to ensure that the report produces data in conformance with the report specifications; 6) Regional CERCLIS
Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes: a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into
CERCLIS, b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by source
documentation, c) delegation of authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS, and, d) procedures to ensure
that reported accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and 7) a historical lockout feature that has been
added to 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.
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLA 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 April 11, 2001.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (1970), and Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA)
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, and the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) of 1990, Section 2905(a)(l)(E) (10 U.S.C. 2687 Note)
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act
of 1999, Public Law 105-276, (112 Stat. 2461, 2499; 42 U.S.C. 6908a).
Executive Order 12241 of September 1980, National Contingency Plan, 3 CFR, 1980
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Oil Pollution Act 33 U.S.C.A.
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
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.
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300F et seq. (1974)
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to the Resource
Conversation and Recovery Act of 1976
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act of 1978
Executive Order 12656 of November 1988, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities, 3 CFR, 1988
Executive Order 12580 of January 1987, Superfund I
m-28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes
under Goal 3.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Enhance Science and Research
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Science & Technology
Buildings and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$46,531.6
$3,117.4
$25,144.1
$682.4
$881.0
$15,798.6
$812.0
$96.1
184.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$59,836.6
$3,026.1
$43,883.3
$730.6
$919.4
$10,374.9
$823.0
$79.1
181.4
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$57,555.6
$2,983.2
$42,840.8
$736.7
$924.4
$9,112.3
$886.9
$71.3
186.4
FY2005Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($2,280.9)
($42.9)
($1,042.5)
$6.1
$5.0
($1,262.6)
$63.9
($7.7)
5.0
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Superfund: Remedial
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: SITE Program
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$5,963.3
$0.0
$25,122.8
$4,781.1
$10,664.4
$46,531.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$6,291.5
$36,568.5
$6,941.1
$10,035.5
$59,836.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$6,234.0
$33,059.3
$6,927.7
$11,334.6
$57,555.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
($57.5)
($3,509.2)
($13.4)
$1,299.2
($2,280.9)
111-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Research
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Clean
In 2005 Complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on NAPLs and sediments, in order to, by
2010, develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools, technologies, methods, and models, and provide technical
support that enable practitioners to 1) characterize the nature and extent of multimedia contamination;
2) assess, predict, and communicate risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ improved
remediation options; and 4) respond to oil spills effectively.
In 2004 Provide risk assessors and managers with site-specific data sets on three applications detailing the
performance of conventional remedies for contaminated sediments to help determine the most effective
techniques for remediating contaminated sites and protecting human health and the environment.
In 2003 Delivered state-of-the-science report and methods to EPA and other stakeholders for risk management
of fuel oxygenates; organic and inorganic contamination of sediments, ground water and/or soils; and
oil spills to ensure cost-effective and technically sound site clean-up.
Performance Measures:
Complete draft of the FY 2002 Annual SITE
Report to Congress.
Reports on performance data for conventional
sediment remedies for three sites.
SITE demonstrations completed
FY 2003
Actuals
1
FY 2003
Actuals
3
FY 2003
Actuals
4
draft report
reports
demonstrations
Baseline: This APG will contribute to an array of assessment and remediation options targeted to addressing
situations where uncertainty remains high, technology performance is lacking, or where existing
options are cost- or time intensive. Through FY 2005, non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) and
contaminated sediments will be of special interest because of the cost and complexity of assessing and
remediating these sites, as well as the risks they pose to public health. EPA estimates that
approximately 20% of National Priorities List (NPL) sites have contaminated sediments with risk from
a number of toxic substances (http:www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/index.htm). Available
remedies are unproven, expensive to implement, or both. The SITE program evaluates tools,
technologies, and approaches for remediation, measurement, and monitoring. The innovative
approaches that are evaluated are largely developed in the private sector. The purpose of the program
is to provide an independent assessment of performance, so that site decision-makers can gain
confidence in selecting an innovative approach. Since the inception of the SITE program in 1986,
clean-up of contaminated sites through the use of innovative technologies has resulted in an estimated
net cost savings of $2.4 billion
(http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/congress/540R03502/540R03502.htm). Beginning in FY 2005,
regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research
programs' relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's
Investment Criteria for Research and Development. Reviewers will also qualitatively determine
whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Recommendations and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA
research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA).
m-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
SITE demonstrations completed
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act (CERCLA)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
Oil Pollution Act (OPA)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
m-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
GOAL 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
STRATEGIC GOAL: Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using
integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
To promote healthy communities and
ecosystems, EPA must bring together a variety of
programs, tools, approaches and resources. The
support of a multitude of stakeholders, along with
strong partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal and
local governments, are necessary to achieve the
Agency's goal of protecting, sustaining or restoring
healthy communities and ecosystems. The Agency's
goal of achieving healthy communities and
ecosystems will be accomplished by focusing both on
stressors to human health and the environment and
the locations at most risk from environmental
problems.
A key component of this goal is protecting
human health and the environment by identifying,
assessing, and reducing the potential risks presented
by the thousands of chemicals on which our society
and economy have come to depend. These include
the pesticides we use to meet national and global
demands for food, and the industrial and commercial
chemicals found throughout our homes, our
workplaces, and the products we use.
Some pest-control methods that are used to
ensure an abundant and affordable food supply can
cause unwanted environmental or health effects if not
used and managed properly. Apart from its role in
agriculture, effective pest control is also essential in
homes, gardens, rights-of-ways, hospitals, and
drinking water treatment facilities. Pesticides are an
important part of pest management in each of these
settings. EPA licenses pesticides to help ensure they
can be used safely and beneficially while avoiding
unintended harm to our health or environment. EPA
must also address the emerging challenges posed by a
growing array of biological organisms—naturally
occurring and, increasingly, genetically engineered—
that are being used in industrial and agricultural
processes.
Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of
all conventional pesticide applications. Herbicides
are the most widely used pesticides and account for
the greatest expenditure and volume, approximately
$6.4 billion and 534 million pounds in 1999.
Biopesticides and reduced risk pesticides are
assuming an increasingly important role. For
example, safer pesticides, which include
biopesticides and reduced risk pesticides, increased in
use from 3.6 percent in 1998 to 7.5 percent of total
pounds reported for 2002.
Biological agents are potential weapons that
could be exploited by terrorists against the United
States. EPA's pesticides antimicrobial program has
been very responsive to addressing this threat.
Antimicrobials play an important role in public health
and safety. EPA is conducting comprehensive
scientific assessments and developing test protocols
to determine product safety and efficacy of products
used against chemical and biological weapons of
mass destruction, and registering products as
necessary. EPA is also developing a timeline for
prioritizing and implementing the tests.
EPA programs under this Goal have many
indirect effects that significantly augment the stream
of benefits they provide. For example, each year the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New
Chemicals program reviews and manages the
potential risks from approximately 1,800 new
chemicals and 40 products of biotechnology that
enter the marketplace. Since its inception,
approximately 17,000 new chemicals reviewed by the
program have entered United States commerce. This
new chemical review process not only protects the
public from the possible immediate threats of harmful
chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
from entering the marketplace, but it has also
contributed to changing the behavior of the chemical
industry, making industry more aware and
responsible for the impact these chemicals have on
human health and the environment.
Americans come into daily contact with any
number of chemicals that entered the market before
the New Chemicals Program was established in 1978,
yet relatively little is known about many of their
IV-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
potential impacts. Getting basic hazard testing
information on large volume chemicals is one focus
of EPA's work in the Existing Chemicals program.
The voluntary High Production Volume program
challenges industry to develop chemical hazard data
critical to enabling EPA, State, Tribes, and the public
to screen chemicals already in commerce for any
risks they may be posing. Risks of other chemicals,
such as lead or PCBs are well known, and EPA's
responsibility centers on reducing exposure through
proper handling or disposal.
The Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) Program was designed by EPA to provide
scientifically credible data to directly support
chemical emergency planning, response, and
prevention programs mandated by Congress.
Emergency workers and first responders need to
know how dangerous a chemical contaminant may be
to breathe or touch, and how long it may remain
dangerous. The program develops short-term
exposure limits applicable to the general population
for a wide range of extremely hazardous substances
(approximately 400) for purposes related to chemical
terrorism and chemical accidents.
In addition to addressing human health and
ecosystems and stressors such as chemicals and
pesticides, this goal also focuses on those geographic
areas with human and ecological communities at
most risk. For example the Mexican Border is an
area facing unique environmental challenges. At the
Mexican Border, EPA addresses local pollution and
infrastructure needs that are priorities for the
Mexican and the U.S. governments under the Border
2012 agreement.
As the population in coastal regions grows
the challenges to preserve and protect these important
ecosystems increase. Through the National Estuary
Program, coastal areas have proved valuable grounds
for combining innovative and community-based
approaches with national guidelines and inter-agency
coordination to achieve results.
Wetlands are among the most productive
ecosystems in the world, comparable to rain forests
and coral reefs. Yet the nation loses an estimated
58,000 acres per year, and existing wetlands may be
degraded by excessive sedimentation, nutrient
enrichment, and other factors.1
1 Dahl, I.E. 1990. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Available online at:
In 2001 the Supreme Court determined that
some isolated waters and wetlands are not regulated
under the Clean Water Act. Many waters with
important aquatic values may no longer be covered
by CWA Section 404 protections.
Large water bodies like the Gulf of Mexico,
the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay are
surrounded by industrial and other development and
have been exposed to substantial pollution over many
years at levels higher than current environmental
standards permit. As a result, the volume of
pollutants in these water bodies has exceeded their
natural ability to restore balance. Working with
stakeholders, EPA has established special programs
to protect and restore these unique resources by
addressing the vulnerabilities for each.
EPA's continued enforcement efforts will be
strengthened through the development of measures to
assess the impact of enforcement activities and assist
in targeting areas that pose the greatest risks to
human health and the environment, display patterns
of noncompliance, and include disproportionately
exposed populations. In addition, the EPA's
enforcement program supports Environmental Justice
effort by focusing enforcement actions and criminal
investigations on industries that have repeatedly
violated environmental laws in minority and/or low-
income areas.
Further, EPA's Brownfields Initiative funds
pilot programs and other research efforts; clarifies
liability issues; enters into Federal, state and local
partnerships; conducts outreach activities; and creates
job training and workforce development programs.
EPA's environmental justice program will
continue education, outreach, and data availability
initiatives. The Program provides a central point for
the Agency to address environmental and human
health concerns in minority and/or low-income
communities~a segment of the population that has
been disproportionately exposed to environmental
harms and risks. The program will continue to
manage the Agency's Environmental Justice
Community Small Grants Program that assists
community-based organizations working to develop
solutions to local environmental issues.
The Agency will continue to support the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html:
Report to Congress on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in
the Conterminous United States, 1986 to 1997.
IV-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
(NEJAC) which provides the Agency significant
input from interested stakeholders such as
community-based organizations, business and
industry, academic institutions, state, Tribal and local
governments, non-governmental organizations and
environmental groups. The Agency will also
continue to chair an Interagency Working Group
(IWG) consisting of eleven departments and
agencies, as well as representatives of various White
House offices, to ensure that environmental justice
concerns are incorporated into all Federal programs.
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 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. It is critical that research
and scientific assessment be integrated with EPA's
policy and regulatory activities. In order to address
complex issues in the future, the Agency will design
and test fundamentally new tools and management
approaches that have potential for achieving
environmental results. Under Goal 4, EPA will
conduct research in many areas, including emerging
areas such as biotechnology and computational
toxicology, to help develop better understandings and
characterizations of positive environmental outcomes
related to healthy communities and ecosystems.
EPA uses several noteworthy mechanisms to
ensure scientific relevance, quality, and integration as
it seeks to produce sound environmental results. For
example, EPA's Science Advisor is responsible for
advising the EPA Administrator on science and
technology issues to support Agency programs,
policies, procedures, and decisions. Also, EPA uses
its Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independently
chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act
committee, to conduct annual, in-depth reviews and
analyses of EPA's Science and Technology account.
The SAB provides its findings to the House Science
Committee and reports findings to EPA's
Administrator after every annual review. Under the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, all
research projects are selected for funding through a
rigorous, competitive, and external peer review
process designed to ensure that only the highest
quality efforts receive funding support. All EPA
scientific and technical work products must undergo
either internal or external peer review, with major or
significant products requiring external peer review.
The Agency also uses a Peer Review Handbook (2nd
Edition) which codifies procedures and guidance for
conducting quality EPA peer reviews. Taken
together, these mechanisms serve to ensure EPA's
research and science remains relevant and committed
to achieving superior environmental results.
MEANS AND STRATEGY
In coordination with our State and Tribal co-
regulators and co-implementers and with the support
of industry, environmental groups, and other
stakeholders, EPA will use multiple approaches to
address risks associated with chemicals and
pesticides. Improving communities' ability to
address local problems is a critical part of our efforts
to reduce risk.
The Agency's strategy for reducing the risks
of exposures to pesticides and industrial chemicals is
based on:
Identifying and assessing potential risks
from? chemicals, pesticides, and
microorganisms;
Setting priorities for addressing these risks;
Developing and implementing strategies
aimed at preventing risks and managing
those risks that cannot be prevented;
Implementing regulatory measures, such as
systematic review of pesticides and new
chemicals, and developing and
implementing procedures for safe
production, use, storage, and handling of
chemicals, pesticides, and microorganisms;
Employing innovative voluntary measures,
such as promoting the use of reduced-risk
pesticides and challenging companies to
assess and reduce chemical risks and
develop safer and less polluting new
chemicals, processes, and technologies; and
Conducting outreach and training, and
establishing partnerships.
Pesticides Management
EPA has the responsibility under Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) to set terms and conditions of pesticide
registration, marketing and use. EPA will use these
authorities to reduce risk from residues of pesticides,
particularly those pesticides with the highest potential
to cause harm to human health and the environment,
including those which pose particular risks to
children and other susceptible populations. All new
IV-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
pesticides are reviewed for registration through an
extensive review and evaluation of human health and
ecosystem studies and data, applying the most recent
scientific advances in risk assessment. The
Registration program includes registration activities,
such as setting tolerances, registering new active
ingredients and new uses, and handling experimental
use permits and emergency exemptions.
New registration actions result in more
pesticides on the market that meet the strict Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) pesticide risk-based
standards, which brings the Agency closer to the
objective of reducing adverse risks from pesticide
use. In 2005, the Agency will continue to promote
accelerated registrations for pesticides that provide
improved risk reduction or risk prevention compared
to those currently on the market. Progressively
replacing older, higher-risk pesticides is one of the
most effective methods for curtailing adverse impact
on health and the ecosystem while preserving food
quality and production rates. EPA measures
adoption of the reduced-risk pesticides by tracking
the amount of acres treated — or "acre treatments" ~
- using reduced risk pesticides. By 2005, an
estimated 8.7 percent of total acre-treatments are
expected to use reduced-risk pesticides.
Another priority is to review older pesticides
in applying the FQPA safety standards. We will
complete pesticide reregistration eligibility decisions
by 2008 (food use by 2006) and, in tandem with that
work, meet our FQPA statutory goal of reassessing
9,721 existing tolerances by August 2006. The
Strategic Agricultural Partnership Initiative and the
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
collaborate with USDA, States, and non-
governmental organizations to demonstrate integrated
pest management strategies that reduce pesticide
residues in the environment.
Pesticide and pest control issues extend
beyond the farm. Public health officials and
homeowners use pesticides to control a variety of
pests, protect human health, and benefit consumers.
Through our regulatory programs, EPA reviews all
pesticides with the goal of minimizing pesticide
exposure and risk. For example, as of 2002,
children's exposure to organophosphates - an older,
riskier class of pesticide - was reduced by 60 percent
through the elimination of many uses in and around
the house. EPA registers antimicrobials used by
public drinking water treatment facilities and by food
processing plants and hospitals to disinfect surfaces.
Effective antimicrobials are of growing importance
as many serious disease-causing organisms become
resistant to our antibiotic procedures. To provide
environmental, public health, and economic benefits,
we will continue addressing risk from older
pesticides, making new pesticides available and
addressing emergency health or pest damage issues
flexibly and efficiently.
Biotechnology has presented the Agency
with a range of new issues and scientific challenges
as well. Outreach activities on the subject of
biotechnology such as public meetings and scientific
peer reviews of our policies and assessments are
likely to be expanded to keep pace with changing
science and the public's demand for information in
this area. EPA is working closely with other Federal
agencies involved in biotechnology. Adoption of
biotechnology has great potential to reduce reliance
on some older, more risky chemical pesticides, and to
lower worker risks. For example, the use of Bt
cotton has reduced the use of other insecticides that
present higher risk to wildlife.
Toxic Chemicals
Three primary approaches comprise EPA's
strategy to prevent and reduce risks that may be
posed by chemicals and microrganisms:
• Preventing the introduction into U.S.
commerce of chemicals and organisms that
pose unreasonable risks;
• Effectively screening the stock of chemicals
already in use for potential risk; and
• Developing and implementing action plans
to reduce use of and exposure to chemicals
that have been demonstrated to harm
humans and the environment.
EPA intends to work with States and Tribes,
other Federal agencies, the private sector, and
international entities to implement this strategy and,
in particular, to make protecting children and the
aging population a fundamental goal of public health
and environmental protection.
TSCA requires that EPA review all new
chemicals and organisms prior to their production or
import and be notified of significant new uses for
certain chemicals that have already been reviewed.2
While TSCA gives EPA a 90-day review period, new
criteria, such as preventing the introduction of
persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) or
considering the use of new chemicals as potential
weapons of terror, continue to emerge. An expanded
set of screening tools will increase EPA's and
2 Toxic Substances Control Act Section 5: Manufacturing
and Processing Notices, Public Law 94-469, October 11,
1976
IV-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
industry's efficiency by using the limited data that
companies provide in their Pre-manufacturing Notice
(PMN) submissions to predict potential hazards,
exposures, and risks quickly and effectively.
In 2005, EPA will continue to make
progress in screening, assessing, and reducing risks
posed by the 66,600 chemicals that were in use prior
to the enactment of TSCA. Thousands of these
chemicals are still used today, and nearly 3,000 of
them are "high production volume" (HPV)
chemicals, produced or imported in quantities
exceeding one million pounds per year.
Approximately 300 companies and 100 consortia are
voluntarily providing data covering over 2,200 of the
more than 2,800 chemicals included in the HPV
Challenge Program.3 EPA will make the data
publicly available and screen for potential hazards
and risks. We will then identify and set priorities for
further assessment, and determine the need to take
action to eliminate or effectively manage the risks
identified. To support these efforts, we will draw on
data already obtained through the TSCA Inventory
Update Rule4, particularly on new expo sure-related
data to be provided beginning in 2005.
In certain instances, risk-reduction efforts
are targeted at specific chemicals. Foremost among
these is the Federal government's commitment to
eliminate the incidence of childhood lead poisoning.
Since 1973, we have reduced environmental lead
levels by phasing out leaded gasoline and addressing
other sources of lead exposure. Since the 1990's,
EPA has focused on reducing children's exposure to
lead in paint and dust through a regulatory
framework and by educating parents and the medical
community about prevention.5 EPA's efforts,
combined with those of other Federal agencies, has
led to a 50 percent drop in the number of children in
the U.S. that have elevated blood levels, to
approximately 400,000 children.
EPA is employing a multimedia, cross-
Agency strategy to focus on other high-risk
chemicals and classes of chemicals. For example, we
are working to prevent new PBTs from entering
commerce and to reduce risks associated with PBTs,
including mercury, that are currently in use or that
have been used in the past. In addition,
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
High Production Volume Challenge Program, HPV
Commitment Tracking System. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/viewsrch.htm.
4 U.S. EPA website, www.epa.gov/opptintr/iur; Title 40
CFRPait'710, SubpartA
See www.epa.gov/lead
recommendations will be provided to EPA in 2004
from a panel of national experts on asbestos that will
assist the Agency in designing strategies to address
remaining asbestos risks. We will expand successful
pilots to encourage companies to retire from service
large capacitors and transformers containing PCBs to
meet ambitious new targets for safe disposal by 2008.
U.S./Mexican Border
To reduce environmental and human health
risks along the U.S./Mexico Border, EPA employs
both voluntary and regulatory measures. Efforts
include a series of workgroups that focus on priority
issues ranging from water infrastructure and
hazardous waste to outreach efforts focusing on
communities and businesses in the border area. The
programs were initially conceived in a Federal-to-
Federal context. Today, it is clear that in both
countries, non-Federal governments are the
appropriate entities for developing and carrying out
much of the work of protecting the border
environment. The experience of the last six years has
shown U.S. border states as key participants in
workgroup activities with similar experience on the
Mexico side.
In the past year, all border states have
stressed the need for greater decentralization of
environmental authority, and in FY 1999, states and
the Federal governments agreed to a set of principles
that clarify the roles of the governments and advance
State and Tribal participation. Under a new
environmental plan developed with SEMARNAP
(EPA's Mexican counterpart), completed in April
2003, the States and Tribes will play a more
substantial and meaningful role in:
• determining how Federal border programs
are developed and funded;
• developing regional workgroups that
empower border citizens; and
• ensuring that programs devolve from
Mexico's Federal government to the
Mexican states, with corresponding funding.
Ecosystems
EPA will work with Federal, state, Tribal,
local, and private sector partners to achieve our
ecosystem objectives. Through continuing emphasis
on partnerships and innovation, we will protect and
restore coastal water quality through the National
Estuary Program and related coastal watershed
support. In coordination with the Corps of
Engineers, EPA will improve the CWA Section 404
program to achieve no net loss of wetlands by
IV-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
avoiding, minimizing and compensating for losses.
With an emphasis on community-based restoration,
EPA will contribute to the goal of no net loss of
wetlands.
Great Lakes Strategy 2002, developed by
EPA and Federal, state, and Tribal agencies in
consultation with the public, advances U.S. Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement implementation. Its
long-range vision for a healthy natural environment
where all beaches are open for swimming, all fish are
safe to eat, and the Lakes are protected as a safe
source of drinking water, is supported by Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs).
Work in the Chesapeake Bay is based on a
unique regional partnership formed to direct and
conduct restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Partners
include Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; the
District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commission; EPA; and participating citizen advisory
groups. A comprehensive and far-reaching
agreement, Chesapeake 2000, will guide restoration
and protection efforts through 2010. The agreement
focuses on improving water quality as the most
critical element in the overall protection and
restoration of the Bay and its tributaries.
EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico
represent a broad, multi-organizational partnership
based on the participation of business and industry,
agriculture, local government, citizens,
environmental and fishery interests, Federal agencies,
and five Gulf States. The partners voluntarily
identify key environmental problems and work at the
regional, state, and local level to define and
recommend solutions.
Brownfields
Brownfields are defined as real properties,
where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of
a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Brownfields include abandoned industrial and
commercial properties, drug labs, mine-scarred land,
and sites contaminated with petroleum or petroleum
products. The Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA), signed
into law in 2002, expands Federal grants for
assessment, cleanup, and job training. To encourage
revitalization and reuse of brownfield sites, the law
limits the legal liability of prospective purchasers,
innocent land holders, and contiguous property
owners related to brownfield properties. In addition,
the law provides for establishing and enhancing state
and Tribal response programs, which play a critical
role in successfully cleaning up and revitalizing
brownfields.
Brownfields grants will continue to provide
communities with vital assessment, cleanup,
revolving-loan fund, and job-training support.
Brownfields assessment grants provide funding to
inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning
and community involvement activities related to
brownfields. Brownfields revolving-loan fund grants
provide funding for a grantee to capitalize a
revolving loan and make subgrants to carry out
cleanup activities. Cleanup grants, newly authorized
by the Brownfields Law, will fund cleanup activities
by grant recipients. Expanded authorities within the
new law also address the potential for limited funding
for institutional controls, insurance, and health
monitoring. EPA will provide limited funding for
grants that provide technical assistance, training, and
research to Brownfields communities. EPA will also
provide funding to create local environmental job
training programs, ensuring that the economic
benefits derived from Brownfields revitalization
efforts remain in the community.
EPA will continue to work in partnership
with state cleanup programs to address brownfield
properties. The Agency will provide states and
Tribes with tools, information, and funding they can
use to develop response programs that will address
environmental assessment cleanup, characterization,
and redevelopment needs at sites contaminated with
hazardous wastes and petroleum. The Agency will
continue to encourage the empowerment of state,
Tribal, and local environmental and economic
development officials to oversee brownfield activities
and the implementation of local solutions to local
problems.
Research
EPA is continuing to ensure that it is a
source of strong scientific and technical information,
and that it is on the leading edge of environmental
protection innovations that will allow achievement of
its strategic objectives. The Agency consults a
number of expert sources, both internally and
externally, and uses several deliberative steps in
planning its research programs. As a starting point,
the Agency draws input from multi-year plans,
EPA's Strategic Plan, available research plans, EPA
program offices and Regions, Federal research
partners, and peer advisory bodies such as the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) and others. Agency
teams prioritize research areas by examining risk and
IV-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
other factors such as National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) research, client office
priorities, court orders, and legislative mandates.
EPA's research program will increase understanding
of environmental processes and capabilities to assess
environmental risks to both human health and
ecosystems.
To enable the Agency to enhance science
and research for healthy people, communities, and
ecosystems through 2008, EPA will engage in high
priority, multidisciplinary research efforts to improve
understanding of the risks associated with: 1) human
health and ecosystems; 2) climate change; 3)
pesticides and toxics; 4) computational toxicology; 5)
endocrine disrupters; 6) mercury, and 7) homeland
security. Following is a summary of the means and
strategies to meet the Agency's long-term objectives
in these areas.
EPA's human health research represents the
Agency's only comprehensive program to address the
limitations in human health risk assessment.
Scientists across the Agency will use the
measurement-derived databases, models, and
protocols developed through this research program to
strengthen the scientific foundation for human health
risk assessment. In addition, global change, loss and
destruction of habitat due to sprawl and exploitation
of natural resources, invasive species, non-point
source pollution, and the accumulation and
interaction of these effects present emerging
ecological challenges. EPA will conduct research to
strengthen its ability to assess and compare risks to
ecosystems, protect and restore them, and track
progress toward optimal ecological outcomes.
EPA designs its Climate Change research
program in collaboration with the other agencies
participating in the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP). This research focuses on assessing potential
direct and indirect effects of climate change on
human health, air quality, water quality, and aquatic
ecosystems; identifying and quantifying the
uncertainties associated with those effects; and
comparing potential climate change effects with
effects caused by other stressors.
Research under the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) builds on earlier research to reduce
scientific uncertainty in risk assessment. This
research will provide data needed to develop refined
aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, develop
the appropriate safety factors to protect children and
other sensitive populations, refine risk assessments,
and provide risk mitigation technologies. By 2008,
EPA will provide scientific tools that can be used to
characterize, assess, and manage risks associated
with the implementation of FQPA.
The Agency will conduct additional research
on pesticides and toxics that support the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
designed to enhance the Agency's human health and
ecological risk assessment and risk management
capabilities. Efforts will include the development of
predictive tools used in testing requirements, research
on probabilistic risk assessment methods,
biotechnology, and other areas of high interest and
utility to the Agency.
To enhance the scientific basis and
diagnostic/predictive capabilities of existing and
proposed chemical testing programs, EPA's
Computational Toxicology (CT) Research Program
will use in vitro or other approaches such as
molecular profiling, bioinformatics, and quantitative
structure-activity relationships. These alternative
approaches, in conjunction with highly sophisticated
computer-based models and research results, will
greatly reduce the use of animal testing to obtain
chemical toxicity information. To support our
regulatory mandates, endocrine disrupters research
will focus on improving EPA's scientific
understanding of exposures to, effects of, and
management of endocrine-disrupter chemicals.
Research in direct support of EPA's screening and
testing programs will evaluate current testing
protocols and develop new protocols to evaluate
potential endocrine effects of environmental agents.
The Agency will also conduct research to determine
impacts that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may
have on humans, wildlife, and the environment.
A 1997 EPA Mercury Study Report to
Congress discussed the magnitude of mercury
emissions in the United States and concluded that a
plausible link exists between human activities that
release mercury from industrial and combustion
sources in the United States and methylmercury
concentrations in humans and wildlife. The Agency
will conduct risk management research for managing
emissions from coal-fired utilities (critical
information for rule-making) and non-combustion
sources of mercury; on the fate and transport of
mercury in the atmosphere; for assessing
methylmercury in human populations; and for
developing risk communication methods and tools.
IV-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EPA's Homeland Security research program
will expand knowledge of potential threats, as well as
its response capabilities, by assembling and
evaluating private sector tools and capabilities.
Preferred response approaches will be identified,
promoted, and evaluated for potential future use by
first responders, decision makers, and the public.
The Agency will be working closely with other
federal and outside organizations to fill gaps in this
critical research area. EPA's research will focus on
preparedness, risk assessment, detection,
containment, decontamination and disposal of
chemical and biological attacks water systems.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND FY 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Ensure new pesticide registration actions
(including new active ingredients and new
uses) meet new health standards and are
environmentally safe.
Increase percentage of acre treatments that
will use reduced-risk pesticides.
Decrease occurrence of residues of
carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting
neuortic pesticides on foods eaten by
children from their 1994 to 1996 average.
Ensure that through ongoing data reviews,
pesticide active ingredients, and products
that contain them, are reviewed to assure
adequate protection for human health and
the environment, taking into consideration
exposure such as subsistence lifestyles of the
Native Americans.
Standardize and validate screening assays.
Reduce from 1995 levels the number of
incidents involving mortalities to
nontargeted terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
caused by pesticides.
Reduce exposure to and health effects from
priority industrial and commercial
chemicals.
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated
with industrial and commercial chemicals.
Ecosystems
assessment/monitoring of overall wetland
health.
Support projects with the goal of creating,
restoring or protecting 2400 acres of
important coastal and marine habitats per
year in the Gulf of Mexico.
Assist the Gulf States in implementing
watershed restoration actions in priority
impaired coastal river and estuary segments.
Improve Great Lakes ecosystem
components, including progress on fish
contaminants, beach closures, air toxics and
trophic status.
Improve the aquatic health of the
Chesapeake Bay.
By 2005, working with partners, achieve no
net loss of wetlands.
Community Health
Empower states, Tribes, local communities
and other stakeholders in economic
redevelopment to work together to prevent,
assess, safely cleanup, and reuse
Brownfields.
Through December 2003, the Brownfields
program has awarded 552 Brownfields
assessment grants, over 171 Brownfields
revolving loan funds and 50 cleanup grants,
and 66 job training grants.
Assess 1,000 Brownfields properties,
Clean up 60 properties using Brownfields
funding,
Leverage $1.0 billion in
cleanup/redevelopment funding,
Leverage 5,000 jobs.
Train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in
jobs.
Science and Research
Support wetlands and stream corridor
restoration and management and
Establish and maintain Centers of Applied
Science to provide technical assistance and
coordination of applied research activities
addressing the latest needs of stakeholders.
Provide high quality exposure, effects and
assessment research results that support the
August 2006 reassessment of current-use
pesticide tolerances, so that, by 2008, EPA
will be able to characterize key factors
influencing children's and other
subpopulations' risks from pesticide
exposure.
IV-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
By 2005, provide risk assessors and
managers with methods and tools for
measuring exposure and effects in children.
By 2005, provide technical guidance for
implementing and evaluating projects to
restore riparian zones, so that, by 2010,
watershed manages have state-of-the-
science field evaluation tools, technical
guidance and decision-support systems.
Through 2005, initiate or submit to external
review 28 human health assessments and
complete 12 human health assessments
through the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS).
HIGHLIGHTS
Chemical, Organism and Pesticide Risks
Pesticide Registration
In 2005, the Agency will continue its efforts
to decrease the risk to the public from pesticide use
through the regulatory review of new pesticides.
EPA expedites the registration of reduced risk
pesticides, which are generally presumed to pose
lower risks to consumers, workers, the ozone layer,
groundwater, and wildlife. These accelerated
pesticide reviews provide an incentive for industry to
develop, register, and use lower risk pesticides.
Additionally, the availability of these reduced risk
pesticides provides alternatives to older, potentially
more harmful products currently on the market.
Biological agents are potential weapons that
could be exploited by terrorists against the United
States. EPA's pesticides antimicrobial program is
working to help address this threat. Antimicrobials
play an important role in public health and safety.
EPA is conducting comprehensive scientific
assessments and developing test protocols to
determine the safety and efficacy of products used
against chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction, and registering products as necessary.
EPA is also developing a timeline for prioritizing and
implementing the tests.
Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration
The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act
requires the reassessment of existing pesticide
tolerances by 2006. A tolerance is the amount of
pesticide residue that may legally remain on a food.
Pesticide reregistration is a statutory requirement
under the 1988 amendments to FIFRA. Under the
law, all pesticides registered prior to November 1984
must be reviewed to ensure that they meet current
health and safety standards. Many pesticides must be
reviewed under both statutes. Additional program
requirements and priorities within FQPA include:
Review of inert ingredients;
Reform of the antimicrobial review process;
Transparency of our regulatory decisions;
Incorporation of aggregate and cumulative
risk into our reviews;
Special protection for infants and children;
Screening of pesticides for endocrine
disrupting effects;
Enhancements to minor use program; and
Emphasis on registration of reduced risk
pesticides
In the Pesticides program, the main focus,
our primary goal, and our largest public commitment
is to meet the final statutory goal for completing
tolerance reassessment by August 3, 2006. Additional
resources of $4,400,000 are requested in this program
to complete food use reregistration work necessary
for the Agency
to complete tolerance reassessments by 2006 as
required by FQPA. These resources will support
completion of conventional pesticides, inerts,
biopesticides and antimicrobial reviews. The reviews
can take several years to complete, therefore FY 2005
is the last opportunity to ensure the Agency has the
resources to meet the 2006 FQPA deadline.
In FY 2005, the Agency will continue its
review of older pesticides and move forward toward
its ten-year statutory deadline of reassessing all 9,721
tolerances. EPA met its first two statutory deadlines
under FQPA for tolerance reassessment. The
tolerance reassessment process addresses the highest-
risk pesticides first. Using data surveys conducted by
USD A, FDA and other sources, EPA has identified a
group of "top 20" foods consumed by children and
matched those with the tolerance reassessments
required for pesticides used on those foods. The
Agency is tracking its progress in determining
appropriate tolerances for these pesticides under the
FQPA standards. In 2005, EPA will continue its
effort to reduce dietary risks to children by
completing approximately 93 percent (cumulative) of
these children's tolerances of special concern.
Through the Reregistration program, EPA
reviews pesticides currently on the market to ensure
they meet the latest health standards. Pesticides not
in compliance with the standards will be eliminated
or restricted in order to minimize potentially harmful
IV-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
exposure. FQPA added considerably more
complexity to the pesticide reregistration process,
lengthening the "front end" of reregistration. These
requirements include considering aggregate and
cumulative risk in our risk assessments,
implementing new processes to increase involvement
of pesticide users and other stakeholders, and
ensuring a reasonable opportunity for agriculture to
make the transition to new, safer pest control tools
and practices.
In 2005, EPA will work toward completing
40 Reregistration Decisions6, 400 product
reregistrations and 1000 tolerance reassessments. The
Agency will also continue to develop tools to screen
pesticides for their potential to disrupt the endocrine
system. Over the longer run, these changes will
enhance protection of human health and the
environment.
Appropriate transition strategies to reduced
risk pesticides are important to the nation to avoid
disruption of the food supply or sudden changes in
the market that could result from abruptly terminating
the use of a pesticide before well-targeted reduced
risk equivalents can be identified and made available.
In FY 2005, the Agency will continue efforts to reach
more farmers and grower groups, encourage them to
adopt safer pesticides, and use environmental
stewardship and integrated pest management
practices. These outreach efforts play pivotal roles in
moving the nation to the use of safe pest control
methods, including reduced risk pesticides. These
programs promote risk reduction through
collaborative efforts with stakeholders to use safer
alternatives to traditional chemical methods of pest
control.
Endangered Species
Also in FY 2005, the Agency is requesting
additional resources of $1,000,000 for the
Endangered Species program. The Agency has been
working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to improve the
review process on the potential impact of pesticides
on endangered species. Efforts include elevating
the level of detail of specificity in risk assessments to
more realistically predict risks to endangered species
populations; developing a compendium of species
biology, food and habitat requirements, listing
specification and recovery efforts; ensuring
implementation of applicable label provisions; and
supporting State and Tribal entities in protecting
endangered species. This funding will be used
mainly by the states for assisting in the
implementation of these improvements.
Endocrine Disrupters
EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Screening
Program (EDSP) was established in response to an
FQPA requirement, and to growing concerns in the
scientific community about observed adverse effects
in wildlife and their potential relationship to human
effects. The program's primary objectives are to
establish validated assays and scientifically-
supported tools for testing chemicals for possible
adverse effects to the endocrine system. FQPA
requires that "validated" assays be used in the
Screening Program, but at passage in 1996, available
endocrine effects test methods were principally
experimental and none had been validated. EPA has
spent the past several years standardizing a defined
set of assays and establishing their relevance and
reliability. The long-term outcomes of the EDSP will
be a baseline estimate of the degree of endocrine
disruption occurring from environmental chemicals,
and a way to measure the risk.
High Production Volume Challenge Program
EPA's High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program, established in cooperation with
industry, environmental groups, and other interested
parties, works to ensure that critical human health
and environmental effects data on approximately
2,800 HPV chemicals are screened and made
publicly available. HPV chemicals are defined as
industrial chemicals that are manufactured or
imported into the United States in volumes of one
million pounds or more each year. Through this
program, EPA asks industry to voluntarily sponsor
HPV chemicals for screening-level testing. Hazard
test information on large volume chemicals is now
more visible through the HPV website7, giving states,
regions, and Tribes accessibility and the ability to
share critical data and information. EPA's screening
efforts should be well under way by FY 2005 and are
expected to result in follow up actions on five to ten
percent of the chemicals screened.
Lead Poisoning Prevention Activities
6 Reregistration Decisions include Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions [REDs], Tolerance Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions [TREDs] and Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions [IREDs]).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "High Production Volume
(HPV) Challenge Program." Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm. Washington,
DC. Accessed September 9, 2003.
IV-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EPA is part of the Federal effort to address
lead poisoning and elevated blood levels in children
by assisting in, and in some cases guiding, Federal
activities aimed at reducing the exposure of children
in homes with lead-based paint. In 2005, EPA plans
to proceed with a proposed rule on the de-leading of
bridges and structures. Also, because much of the
remaining incidence of lead poisoning occurs in low-
income, urban areas, new public education initiatives
will focus on these populations. EPA also plans to
step up efforts with the private sector to increase
knowledge and ability to work in a lead-safe manner
as a normal part of doing business, and plans to
ensure that special attention is paid to private sector
(non-profit and for-profit) organizations working in
high-impact areas.
Risk Management Plans
Reducing chemical accidents is vital to
ensure that communities are not exposed to
hazardous materials. The Agency continues its
efforts to help states and Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs) implement the risk
management plan (RMP) program. In FY 2002, 398
RMP audits were conducted and the Agency
continues to make steady progress in this area. In
FY 2005, EPA will provide technical assistance
grants, technical support, outreach, and training to
state and LEPCs. Through these activities, states,
local communities and individuals will be better
prepared to prevent and prepare for chemical
accidents.
cleanup/redevelopment funding, leverage 5,000 jobs,
and train 200 participants, placing 65 percent in jobs.
Community Health
Brownfields
The Brownfields program is designed to
empower states, Tribes, local communities and other
stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work
together to prevent, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse
Brownfields. Through December 2003, the
Brownfields program has awarded 552 Brownfields
assessment grants, over 171 Brownfields revolving
loan funds and 50 cleanup grants, and 66 job training
grants. In FY 2005, working with its state, Tribal,
and local partners to meet its objective to sustain,
cleanup, and restore communities and the ecological
systems that support them, EPA intends to assess
1,000 Brownfields properties, clean up 60 properties
using Brownfields funding, leverage $1.0 billion in
Ecosystems
National Estuary Program
EPA will continue to support protection and
restoration efforts in high-priority ecosystems,
including those covered by the National Estuary
Program (NEP). Key NEP activities will include
continued support for assessing status and trends, and
implementation activities to restore and protect
critical habitat.
State and Tribal Grants
EPA will continue its grants to states and
Tribes to help them protect wetlands made vulnerable
by the SWANCC ruling as part of comprehensive
programs that will achieve no net loss of wetlands,
while also providing grant funding for states and
Tribes to assume more decision-making authority in
waters that remain subject to the CWA.
Watersheds
Targeted geographic watershed initiatives
are an important component of community-based
environmental protection and restoration. In the
Great Lakes, EPA will target additional resources to
clean up contaminated sediments and strive to reduce
PCB concentrations in lake trout and walleye. The
emphasis in the Chesapeake Bay will be the
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
To achieve improved water quality and restore
submerged aquatic vegetation, Chesapeake Bay
partners have committed to reducing nutrient and
sediment pollution loads sufficiently to remove the
Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries from the
list of impaired waters. Continued implementation of
core water programs and efforts to address the
hypoxic zone will help to restore the waters of the
Gulf of Mexico and its tributaries.
IV-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Research
Research for Human Health and Ecosystems
In order to improve the scientific basis for
identifying, characterizing, assessing, and managing
environmental exposures that can pose the greatest
health risks to the American public, EPA is
committed to developing and verifying innovative
methods and models for assessing the susceptibilities
of sub-populations, such as children and the elderly,
to environmental toxins. Since many of the current
human health risk assessment methods, models, and
databases are based on environmental risks for adults,
this research is primarily aimed at enhancing current
risk assessment and management strategies and
guidance to better consider risk determination needs
for children.
In FY 2005, research will identify modes of
action by which specific groups of
chemicals/pesticides increase cancer or non-cancer
health risks as a function of life stage, develop the
necessary tools and models to characterize and
conduct field studies on exposures to high-priority
environmental chemicals in the elderly, and examine
effects of pre-existing respiratory disease (e.g.,
asthma, bronchitis) on response to air pollutants.
EPA will continue to generate exposure
measurement and exposure factor data and establish
methods to support the development, evaluation, and
enhancement of models of aggregate exposures, dose,
and effects. This research seeks to understand the
key determinants of exposure and risk, improve
exposure measurement techniques, and develop
critical data on exposure and exposure factors. The
results will be used to fill data gaps and reduce
reliance on numerous default assumptions that are
currently used in the risk assessment process, which
will strengthen the scientific foundation for human
health risk assessment.
Additional research will provide regulatory
decision-makers with models and guidance that will
be used for conducting assessments for cumulative
exposure and risks to pollutants that pose the greatest
health risks to the American public. Activities for
FY 2005 and beyond include: 1) developing and
refining physiologically-based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) models for using exposure, biomarker, and
PK data in risk assessments; 2) examining promising
new biomarkers of exposure and effects that can be
used in future exposure and epidemiological studies,
such as the National Children's Study (NCS); and 3)
sponsoring research that will provide a framework for
structuring evaluations of the toxicity of complex
chemical mixtures for use in human and
environmental health assessments.
In order to balance the growth of human
activity with the need to protect the environment, it is
important to understand the current condition of
ecosystems, what stressors are changing that
condition, what the effects may be from those
changes, and what can be done to prevent, mitigate,
or adapt to those changes. In FY 2005, the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) will continue to be a major contributor to
EPA's environmental indicators report and will be
instrumental in improving state contributions to the
Agency's bi-annual report to Congress on the
condition of the Nation's waters. Baseline ecological
condition of Western streams will be determined so
that, by 2008, a monitoring framework is available
for streams and small rivers in the Western U.S. that
can be used from the local to the national level for
statistical assessments of condition and change to
ecological resources.
Research will also provide technical
guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to
restore riparian zones, which are critical landscape
components for the restoration of aquatic ecosystems
and water quality. Research will include: (1)
development, demonstration and technical support
for monitoring designs, indicators, and interpretive
analysis tools to allow States and Tribes to monitor
and report the condition of water resources; (2)
development of approaches to identify and test the
linkages between probability-based and targeted
water quality monitoring programs, landscape
characteristics and the probability of water body
impairment; (3) development of monitoring methods
and decision support systems to improve our ability
to identify probable causes of ecological impairment
in streams; and (4) development of monitoring
approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of programs
to manage and restore aquatic resources in reaching
performance objectives at site, regional, state and
national scales.
The Agency will continue research to assess
the impacts of invasive species on U.S. ecosystems,
including monitoring for invasive species as part of
the Western EMAP program and the National Coastal
Assessment, modeling zebra mussel influence on
IV-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
nutrients in Great Lakes Ecosystems, and developing
a model for predicting where certain species will
invade next.
Research efforts in FY 2005 will continue to
build on the Agency's FY 2004 Clear Skies Research
Initiative to identify where emerging control
technologies and continuous measurement of
mercury combustion sources can facilitate or
optimize mercury emissions reduction. This research
will also give support to the recent Utility Mercury
Reductions proposal signed by Administrator Leavitt
on December 15, 2003.
EPA will increase efforts to implement
information quality guidelines. While the Agency
has extensive procedures in place to ensure that the
information it disseminates meets high standards,
further actions will be taken to ensure that such
information is current and fully complies with the
guidelines. In FY 2005, the Agency will establish an
extramural mechanism to assist Regions in
identifying external peer reviewers and securing their
advice and assistance.
Climate Change Research
EPA's Climate Change Research Program
supports one of six Administration FY 2005
Interagency Research and Development Priorities -
Climate Change Science and Technology. All
activities to assess potential impacts of global climate
change will be developed and coordinated with the
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Attention
is expected to be given to assessing the potential
consequences of global change - including climate
variability and change, land use changes, and UV
radiation - on air quality, water quality, ecosystem
health, and human health. The Agency will also
assess potential adaptation strategies for building
resilience to global change, while responding to both
potential risks and opportunities.
Research for Pesticides and Toxics
EPA is continuing to build on research
launched under the FY 2003 Biotechnology Initiative
focusing on plant-incorporated protectants (PIP)
crops. In FY 2005, the Agency will deliver a final
report outlining the state-of-the-art in tools for
monitoring resistance development in the field and
the use of target pest ecology to refine Insect
Resistance Management strategies, as they are
determined in risk assessment practice. This report
will focus on data gaps in pest biology, ecology, and
population dynamics related to insect resistance
development. The report will also lend insight into
the development of appropriate tools to identify and
measure resistance in field populations of target
pests.
Research for Computational Toxicology
EPA's Computational Toxicology research
program supports the Molecular-level Understanding
of Life Processes activity, one of the
Administration's six FY 2005 Interagency Research
and Development Priorities, by employing the use of
genomic information and modern computational
techniques to enable better management of chemicals
that may be present in the environment. In FY 2005,
EPA will invest additional resources in
computational toxicology (CT) research - 4.0 FTE
and $4,080,093. The FY 2005 CT investment will
build upon the current program by accelerating the
use of bioinformatics and other computational
approaches and apply the program to address other
high priority regulatory issues, including the
assessment of important classes of environmental
agents. In FY 2005, the Agency will begin to
develop computational models that could be used to
help prioritize anti-microbial agents and inerts for
screening and testing requirements.
Fellowships
The STAR fellowship program is the only
Federal fellowship program designed exclusively for
students pursuing advanced degrees in the
environmental sciences and engineering. In FY
2005, the Agency will invest additional resources to
support STAR graduate fellowships. This additional
investment will extend the purpose of developing
high quality scientists across multiple disciplines,
including the biological and physical sciences,
mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering that
will benefit EPA, the private sector, and the entire
Nation.
In FY 2005, EPA will also invest additional
resources to support Association of Schools of Public
Health (ASPH) fellowships. This investment will
further extend the important contribution to public
health issues that ASPH fellows provide within EPA,
thereby helping EPA to better design its programs for
human health outcomes. Under a cooperative
agreement with the ASPH, eligible fellows are placed
in EPA labs, centers, and offices to conduct projects
that contribute to EPA's public health mission.
Research for Homeland Security
EPA's Homeland Security research program
will continue to conduct critical cross-cutting
research to provide near-term, appropriate,
affordable, reliable, tested, and effective technologies
and guidance. Work will focus on preparedness, risk
IV-13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
assessment, detection, containment, decontamination,
and disposal of chemical and biological agents used
in attacks on water systems. New work will be
initiated in the decontamination and clean up of
biological agents.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
The ability of the Agency to achieve its
strategic goals and objectives depends on several
factors over which the Agency has only partial
control or influence. Partnerships, voluntary
cooperation, international collaboration, industry,
economic influences, industrial accidents, natural
disasters, litigation, and legislation play critical roles,
affecting the Agency's results. Changes in the focus,
level of effort, or status of any of these components
could affect the success of the Agency's programs
under Goal 4. Consequently, EPA must consider
these factors as it establishes annual performance
measures and targets.
EPA assures the safe use of pesticides in
coordination with the USDA and FDA, who have
responsibility to monitor and control residues and
other environmental exposures. EPA also works with
these agencies to coordinate with other countries and
international organizations with which the United
States shares environmental goals. The Agency
employs a number of mechanisms and programs to
assure that our partners in environmental protection
will have the capacity to conduct the activities
needed to achieve the objectives. However, as noted,
EPA often has limited control over these entities.
Much of the success of EPA programs depends on
the voluntary cooperation of the private sector and
the public.
Other factors that may delay or prevent the
Agency's achievement of the objectives include
lawsuits that delay or stop the planned activities of
EPA and/or State partners, new or amended
legislation, and new commitments within the
Administration. Economic growth and changes in
producer and consumer behavior could also have an
influence on the Agency's ability to achieve the
objectives within the time frame specified.
Large-scale accidental releases, such as
pesticide spills, or rare catastrophic natural events
(such as hurricanes or large-scale flooding) could
impact EPA's ability to achieve objectives in the
short term. In the longer term, new technology,
newly identified environmental problems and
priorities, or unanticipated complexity or magnitude
of pesticide-related problems may affect the time
frame for achieving the objectives or long-term goals.
For example, pesticide use is affected by
unanticipated outbreaks of pest infestations and/or
disease factors, which require EPA to review
emergency uses in order to preclude unreasonable
risks to the environment. While the Agency can
provide incentives for the submission of registration
actions such as reduced risk and minor uses, EPA
does not control incoming requests for registration
actions. As a result, the Agency's projection of
regulatory workload is subject to change.
Progress in reducing risks is often highly
dependent on industry's response to EPA assistance
and initiatives. EPA has little direct control over the
pace and volume at which industry develops new
chemicals or pesticides; we primarily concentrate on
providing industry with tools, such as the PBT
Profiler and Pollution Prevention Framework, or
incentives, such as the priority review of reduced-risk
pesticides, to help screen out high-risk chemicals
before they are submitted for EPA review. These
tools and incentives have been shown to be effective
in gaining cooperation from industry and meeting our
long-term and annual goals. In addition, voluntary
programs, such as the HPV Challenge Program,
operate exclusively on the basis of industry
commitments for participation. Industry's response
to such initiatives affects the Agency's ability to
achieve effective new chemical screening efficiently.
Research
Strong science is predicated on the desire of
the Agency to make human health and environmental
decisions based on high-quality scientific data and
information. This challenges the Agency to perform
and apply the best available science and technical
analyses when addressing health and environmental
problems. Such a challenge moves the Agency to a
more integrated, efficient, and effective approach of
reducing potential risks. As long as high quality
science is a central tenant for actions taken by the
Agency, then external factors will have a minimal
impact on the goal.
IV-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Resource Summary
(Dollars in thousands)
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Communities
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$1,211,267.2
$345,298.1
$313,167.7
$171,169.4
$380,878.7
3,923.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,262,438.1
$364,126.3
$317,572.9
$160,698.1
$420,040.9
3,824.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,298,932.0
$383,305.4
$319,958.4
$200,844.5
$394,823.7
3,850.1
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres
Bud
$36,493.9
$19,179.2
$2,385.4
$40,146.5
($25,217.2)
25.8
IV-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humans,
communities, and ecosystems.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Credit Subsidy Re-estimate
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$345,298.1
$905.5
$307,746.6
$4,939.6
$23,630.5
$1,334.9
1,819.1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$364,126.3
$0.0
$327,982.7
$5,379.6
$6,827.6
$22,236.0
$1,700.4
1,837.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$383,305.4
$0.0
$346,346.5
$5,469.4
$7,375.2
$22,367.0
$1,747.3
1,859.8
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$19,179.1
$0.0
$18,363.8
$89.8
$547.6
$131.0
$46.9
22.7
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Pesticides: Field Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Categorical Grant: Lead
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
POPs Implementation
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Prgm
TRI / Right to Know
International Capacity Building
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY2003
Actuals
$365.2
$8,492.9
$19,119.3
$3,929.8
$686.3
$15,137.6
$304.4
$42,458.9
$50,922.0
$2,090.9
$10,273.0
$10,464.4
$42,212.4
$11,263.0
$14,687.6
$2,109.8
$110,780.6
$345,298.1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$8,536.0
$23,246.9
$0.0
$2,327.4
$13,700.0
$393.8
$35,981.6
$64,314.4
$2,224.4
$12,508.1
$9,243.1
$45,536.2
$14,832.9
$14,690.6
$1,541.2
$115,049.7
$364,126.3
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$116.0
$8,667.0
$24,703.2
$0.0
$2,339.8
$13,700.0
$417.1
$45,310.2
$60,471.0
$2,235.4
$12,134.8
$9,514.2
$45,878.8
$11,082.6
$15,940.9
$1,804.7
$128,989.7
$383,305.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$116.0
$131.0
$1,456.3
$0.0
$12.4
$0.0
$23.3
$9,328.6
($3,843.4)
$11.0
($373.3)
$271.1
$342.6
($3,750.3)
$1,250.3
$263.5
$13,940.0
$19,179.1
IV-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
OBJECTIVE: CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
In 2005 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health
standards and are environmentally safe.
In 2005 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides
In 2004 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels.
In 2003 124 safer chemicals and biopesticides were registered, 72 new chemicals were registered, and 425 new
uses were registered. Date for acre-treatments is expected in 2004.
Performance Measures:
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides
New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
New Uses
Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk
pesticides
Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions
Reduce registration decision times for new
conventional chemicals
Reduce registration decision times for reduced
risk chemicals
Baseline: The baseline for registration of reduced risk pesticides, new chemicals, and new uses, is zero in the
year 1996 (the year FQPA was enacted). Progress is measured cumulatively since 1996. The baseline
for acres-treated is 3.6% of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acres-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. serves as the basis for computing the
percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total number of
pesticide treatments each acre receives each year. As of 2003, there are no products registered for use
against other potential bio-agents (non-anthrax). Conventional pesticides FY 2002 baseline for
reducing decision time is 44 months; reduced risk pesticides FY 2002 baseline for reducing time is
32.5 months. The 2005 baseline for expedited new active ingredient pesticides is 4. The S18 2005
baseline is 45 days.
Reduce use of highly toxic pesticides
In 2005
FY 2003
Actuals
124
72
425
Data lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
131
74
3,079
8.5%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
135
84
3,479
8.7%
45
7%
3%
Regist.
(Cum)
Regist.
(Cum)
Actions
(Cum)
Acre-
Treatments
Days
Reduction
Reduction
In 2004
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting neuortic pesticides on
foods eaten by children from their average 1994-1996 levels
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides on foods
eaten by children from their average 1994-1996 levels.
IV-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In 2003
Data available in 2004.
FY 2003
Actuals
Data lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
27%
Reduced
Detections
Performance Measures:
Reduction of detections on a core set of 19 foods
eaten by children relative to detection levels for
those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Baseline: Percent occurrence of residues of FQPA priority pesticides (organophosphates and carbamates) on
samples of children's foods in baseline years 94-96. Baseline percent is 33.5% of composite sample of
children's foods: apples, apple juice, bananas, broccoli, carrots, celery, grapes, green beans (fresh,
canned, frozen), lettuce, milk, oranges, peaches, potatoes, spinach, sweet corn (canned and frozen),
sweet peas (canned and frozen), sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and wheat.
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
In 2005 Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them
are reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into
consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2004 Ensure that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active ingredients and the products that contain
them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into
consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans.
Performance Measures:
Tolerance Reassessment
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs)
Product Reregistration
Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten
by children
Number of inert ingredients tolerances
reassessed
Reduce decision time for REDs
Baseline: The baseline value for tolerance reassessments is the 9,721 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006
using FQPA health and safety standards. The baseline for REDS is the 612 REDs that must be
completed by 2008. The baseline for inerts tolerances is 870 that must be reassessed by 2006. The
baseline for the top 20 foods eaten by children is 893 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006.
Tribal Pilot of 2 models in FY 2003; total number of models to be determined (current estimate is!6-
18). Reregistration decision time baseline 38-40 months.
Testing of Chemicals in Commerce for Endocrine Disruption
In 2005 Standardization and validation of screening assays
In 2004 Standardization and validation of screening assays
FY 2003
Actuals
68%
75%
306
65.6%
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
78%
81.7%
750
83%
100
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
87.7%
88.2%
400
93%
100
7%
Tolerances
(Cum)
Decisions
(Cum)
Actions
Tolerances
(Cum)
tolerances
Reduction
IV-18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Screening Assays Completed
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
11
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
11
Screening
assay
Baseline: The non-prioritized universe of chemicals that needs to be considered for prioritization includes:
pesticide active ingredients, pesticide inert ingredients, chemicals on the TSCA Inventory,
environmental contaminants, food additives, Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, nutritional supplements, and
representative mixtures. "Priority-setting" refers to the determination of priorities for entry into Tier 1
Screening. The baseline for the Tier 1 screening measure is zero in 1996 - no valid methods for
endocrine disrupter screening and testing existed when FQPA was enacted in FY1996.
Process and Disseminate TRI Information - OEI
In 2005 The increased use of the Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden
reduction of 5% for Reporting Year 2004 from Reporting Year 2003 levels.
In 2004 The increased use of the Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden
reduction of 5% for Reporting Year 2003 from Reporting Year 2002 levels.
Performance Measures:
Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted
over the Internet using TRI-ME and the Central
Data Exchange.
Baseline: 4.2 million hours for FY 2002.
FY 2003
Actuals
25
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
50
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
55
Percent
Reduce Wildlife Incidents and Mortalities
In 2005 Reduce from 1995 levels the number of incidents involving mortalities to nontargeted terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife caused by pesticides
In 2004 Reduce Wildlife Incidents and Mortalities
Performance Measures:
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial
and aquatic wildlife caused by the 15 pesticides
responsible for the greatest mortality to such
wildlife
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
11
reduction
Baseline: 80 reported bird incidents (involving 1150 estimated bird casualties); 65 reported fish incidents
(involving 632,000 estimated fish casualties) as reported in 1995.
Exposure to Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2005 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial / commercial chemicals
In 2004 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial / commercial chemicals
IV-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
5,000
9,000
270,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
5,000
9,000
225,000
Transformers
Capacitors
children
Performance Measures:
Safe Disposal of Transformers
Safe Disposal of Capacitors
number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated
blood lead levels (>10 ug / dl)
Baseline: 1999/2000 baseline released in January 2003: Approximately 400,000 cases of childhood lead
poisoning cases according to NHANES data. In 2004 a larger data set will be included as we will be
expanding to include more EPA Regional efforts that will include all federally administered and State
administered programs. Introduced the "number of children aged 1-5 years" measure in FY2004.
Since the baseline is 1999/2000 data we are unable to project targets for 2004 and 2005 due to the
data-lag. The FY2003 data for a new baseline may not be available until 2005. The baseline for PCB
transformers is estimated at 2.2 million units and for capacitors is estimated at 1.85 million units as of
1988 as noted in the 1989 PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule. From 1991-2001 there was a
declining trend in PCB disposal due to failing equipment and environmental liability: the total number
of PCB large capacitors safely disposed of 436,485 and the total number of PCB transformers safely
disposed of 172,672 as of 2002.
Risks from Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2005 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
In 2004 Identify and reduce risks associated with international industrial/commercial chemicals.
In 2004 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
In 2003 Of the approximately 1,633 applications for new chemicals and microorganisms submitted by industry,
ensure those marketed are safe for humans and the environment. Increased proportion of commercial
chemicals that have undergone PMN review to signify they are properly managed and may be potential
"green" alternatives to existing chemicals in commerce.
Performance Measures:
Number of TSCA Pre-Manufacture Notice
Reviews
Make screening level health and environmental
effects data publicly available for sponsored
HPV chemicals
Reduction in the current year production-
adjusted Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals.
High Production Volume chemicals with
complete Screening Information Data Sets
(SIDS) submitted to OECD SIDS Initial
Assessment Meeting
Percentage of chemicals identified as highest
priority by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) Program with short-term exposure
limits established.
FY 2003
Actuals
1,633
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1,700
1,300
9%
75
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
12%
52%
Notices
cum.
chemicals
Index
chemicals
Total
Chemicals
IV-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Baseline: The baseline for TSCA PMNs in FY2004 is zero. (EPA receives about 1,700 PMNs per year for
chemicals about to enter commerce. From 1979-2002, EPA reviewed about 40,000 PMNs. Of the
78,000 chemicals potentially in commerce, 16,618 have gone through the risk-screening process of
Notice of Commencement.) The baseline for HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998. The baseline
for the RSEI measure is the index calculated for 2001. Baseline is 2002; calculation methodology by
addition of AEGL values (10 minute, 1 hour, 4 hour and 24 hour exposure periods) and numbers of
chemicals addressed. There is a list maintained by the AEGL FACA committee of highest priority
chemicals: 99 chemicals are on List 1 which was generated at the program's inception in 1996 and 137
chemicals are highest priority on List 2 which was generated in 2001. Therefore the total of highest
priority chemical stands today at 236 chemicals, however chemicals can be added or deleted from the
list to fit stakeholder needs which is why we have decided to provide percentage targets. 2001 levels
will serve as the baseline reference point for the percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic
human health associated with environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as measured
by Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model analyzing results to date. Measurement
Development Plans exist for HPV, VCCEP, and New Chemicals.
Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
In 2005 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility
risk reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
In 2004 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility
risk reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
In 2003 Data available in March 2004.
Performance Measures:
Number of risk management plan audits Data lag 400 400 audits
completed.
Baseline: By the end of FY 2001, 438 risk management plan audits were completed.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of TRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using the
Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) and the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Performance Database: TRI System (TRIS).
Data Source: Facility submissions of TRI data to EPA.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: As part of the regular process of opening the mail at the TRI Reporting
Center, submissions are immediately classified as paper or floppy disk. This information is then entered into TRIS.
The identification of an electronic submission via CDX is done automatically by the software.
QA/QC Procedures: Currently, the mail room determines whether a submission is on paper or a floppy disk during
the normal process of entering and tracking submissions. Electronic submissions via CDX are automatically tracked
by the software. With an increase in electronic reporting via CDX, the manual mail room processing will be
significantly reduced. Information received via hard copy is double-key entered. During the facility reconciliation
process, the data entered are checked to ensure submission identification is accomplished at no less than 99 %
accuracy. Accuracy is defined as accurate identification of document type.
Data Quality Reviews: Each month the Data Processing Center conducts data quality checks to ensure 99 %
accuracy of submission information captured in TRIS.
Data Limitations: Occasionally, some facilities send in their forms in duplicative formats (e.g., paper, floppy,
and/or through CDX). All submissions are entered into TRIS. The Data Processing Center follows the procedures
IV-21
FY 2003
Actuals
Data lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
400
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
400
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
outlined in the document "Dupe Check Procedures" to identify potential duplicate submissions. Submissions
through CDX override duplicate submissions through disk and/or hard copy. Floppy disk submissions override
duplicate paper copy submissions.
Error Estimate: The error rate for "submission-type" data capture has been assessed to be less than 1%. The
quality of the data is high.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: EPA continues to identify enhancements in E-reporting
capabilities via CDX.
References: www.epa.gov/TRI
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of acre treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research data, for this measure.
Data Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing Research, Inc. (a private sector research database).
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 Doane.
Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the
variability.
Doane 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 (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. Doane data are
subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented at their websites.
Data Quality Review: Doane data are subject to extensive internal quality review, documented at the website.
EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from Doane. Information is also compared to prior years for
variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the variability.
Data Limitations: Doane data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed information, the Agency must
obtain approval.
Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of sampling. Doane 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.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduction in occurrences of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting
neurotoxic pesticide residues on a core set of 19 children's foods reported in 1994-1996
Performance Database: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDF).
IV-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Source: Data collection is conducted by the states. Information is coordinated by USDA agencies and
cooperating state agencies.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The information is collected by the states and includes statistical
information on pesticide use, food consumption, and residue detections, which provide the basis for realistic dietary
risk assessments and evaluation of pesticide tolerance. Pesticide residue sampling and testing procedures are
managed by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). AMS also maintains an automated information system
for pesticide residue data and publishes annual summaries of residue detections.
This measure helps provide information on the effect of EPA's regulatory actions on children's health via reduction
of pesticide residues on children's foods. The assumption is that through reduction of pesticide residues on these
foods, children's exposure to pesticides will be reduced; thus, the risk to their health diminished. This measure
contributes to the Agency's goal of protecting human health and is aligned with the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) mandate of protecting children's health.
QA/QC Procedures: The core of USDA's PDP's QA/QC program is Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) based
on EPA's Good Laboratory Practices. At each participating laboratory, there is a quality assurance (QA) unit which
operates independently from the rest of the laboratory staff. QA Plans are followed as the standard procedure, with
any deviations documented extensively. Final QA review is conducted by PDF staff responsible for collating and
reviewing data for conformance with SOPs. PDF staff also monitors the performance of participating laboratories
through proficiency evaluation samples, quality assurance internal reviews, and on-site visits. Additionally,
analytical methods have been standardized in various areas including analytical standards, laboratory operations,
data handling, instrumentation and QA/QC. With the exception of California, all samples of a commodity collected
for PDF are forwarded to a single laboratory, allowing greater consistency, improved QA/QC and reduced sample
loss. Program plans may be accessed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
Data Quality Review: In addition to having extensive QA plans to ensure reliability of the data, the PDF follows
EPA's Good Laboratory Practices in standard operating procedures. A QA committee composed of quality
assurance officers is responsible for annual review of program SOPs and for addressing QA/QC issues. Quality
assurance units at each participating laboratory operate independently from the laboratory staff and are responsible
for day-to-day quality assurance oversight. Preliminary QA/QC review is done at each participating laboratory with
final review performed by PDF staff for conformance with SOPs.
Data Limitations: Participation in the PDF is voluntary. Sampling is limited to ten states but designed in a manner
to represent the food supply nationwide. The number of sampling sites and volume vary by state. Sampling
procedures are described at the website, see reference below.
Error Estimate: Uncertainties and other sources of error are minor and not expected to have any significant effect
on performance assessment. More information is available on the website (See References).
New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA data; thus improvements are not known in any detail at this
time.
References: PDF Annual Reports, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm;
http://www.ams.usda.gov/process/; CFR 40 Part 160; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996;
http://www.epahome/Standards.htmli.http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/SOPs.htm.
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of Tolerance Reassessments issued.
• Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued.
• Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued.
• Tolerance Reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children
• Number of inert ingredients tolerance/tolerance exemptions reassessed.
• Reduce decision times for REDs
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network) consolidates various
EPA program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks regulatory data submissions and studies, organized
IV-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a pesticide's reregistration. Additionally,
manual counts of the registrations of reduced risk pesticides are kept as backup and quality control.
Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program.
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.
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.
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.
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: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will
contribute to reducing the processing time for reregistration actions.
References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA Number 735-R-03-001;
2003 Annual Performance Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
caused by the 15 pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife.
Performance Database: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is a national database of information
on poisoning incidents of non-target plants and animals caused by pesticide use. The Environmental Fate and
Effects staff for Pesticide Programs maintain this database.
Data Source: Data are extracted from written reports of fish and wildlife incidents submitted to the Agency by
pesticide registrants under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as well
as incident reports voluntarily submitted by state and Federal agencies involved in investigating such incidents.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure helps to provide information on the effect of EPA's
regulatory actions on the well being of fish and wildlife. The assumption is that the number of incidents and
mortalities to fish and wildlife caused by pesticides will decrease when use of those pesticides are curtailed or
eliminated.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA employs a process to ensure data quality for this measure which begins before entering
an incident into the database. A database program is used to screen for records already in the database with similar
locations and dates. Similar records are then individually reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting. After each record
is entered into the EIIS database, an incident report is printed that contains all the data entered into the database. A
staff member, other than the one who entered the data, then reviews the information in the report and compares it to
the original source report to verify data quality. Scientists using the incident database are also encouraged to report
any inaccuracies they find in the database for correction.
Data Quality Review: Internally and externally conducted data quality reviews related to data entry are ongoing.
EPA follows a quality assurance plan for accurately extracting data from reports and entering it into the EIIS
database. This quality assurance plan is described in Appendix D of the Quality Management Plan for pesticides
programs. When resources allow incorporation of wildlife data from private organizations, such as the American
Bird Conservancy, the new data and EIIS data are reviewed for quality during data entry using the same standards.
Data Limitations: This measure is designed to monitor trends in the numbers of acute poisoning events reported to
the Agency. Because the data are obtained, in part, through voluntary reporting, the numbers of reported incidents
may not accurately reflect the numbers of actual incidents. Therefore, it is important to consider the possible factors
influencing changes in incident reporting rates over time when evaluating this measure.
IV-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Error Estimate: Moving average counts of number of incidents per year may be interpreted as a relative index of
the frequency of adverse effects that pesticides are causing to fish and wildlife from acute toxicity effects. The
indicator numbers are subject to under-reporting, but trends in the numbers over time may indicate if the overall
level of adverse acute effects is improving or getting worse. Even so, if there is an increase in bird kills since the
baseline year, it may be due to better tracking/reporting of kills rather than an increase or change in use of a
pesticide.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA is currently conducting a project with the American Bird Conservancy,
reviewing the data in its Avian Incident Monitoring System on bird kill incidents caused by pesticides. These data
will be incorporated into the EIIS. The project is expected to improve the quantity and quality of data in the EIIS
database on avian incidents.
References: The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) is an internal EPA database. Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2).
QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides Program, May 20, 2000
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Number of registrations of reduced risk pesticides registered (Register safer chemicals and
biopesticides).
• Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New Chemicals)(Cumulative).
• Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(Cumulative).
• Number of new uses for previously registered antimicrobial products.
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions.
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network) consolidates various
pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the 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.
Additionally, manual counts of the registrations of reduced risk pesticides are maintained for quality control
Data Source: Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and studies as they are received and
as work is completed by the reviewers. The status indicates whether the application is ready for review, the
application is in the process of review, or the review has been completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which when finalized, represent the
program's statutory requirements to ensure: 1) that pesticides entering the marketplace are safe for human health
and the environment, and 2) 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,
such that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.
QA/QC Procedures: 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). 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.
Data Quality Review: These are program outputs. EPA staff and management review the program outputs in
accordance with established policy for the registration of reduced-risk pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation
Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.
Data Limitations: None. All required data must be submitted for the risk assessments before the pesticide,
including a reduced risk pesticide, is registered. If data are not submitted, the pesticide is not registered. As stated
above, a reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in PRN 97-3 and all registrations must meet FQPA
safety requirements. If a pesticide does not meet these criteria, it is not registered. If an application for a reduced
risk pesticide does not meet the reduced risk criteria, it is reviewed as a conventional active ingredient.
IV-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network), which
consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the processing time for registration actions.
References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4,
1997; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996;
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (>10
ug/dL). This is the level that CDC defines as 'elevated' and indicative of the need for intervention.
Performance Database: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES).
Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a coordinated program of studies designed
to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. The program began in the early 1960s
and continues. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 people each year
located across the U.S.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: 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: heavy metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOC exposures, phthalates,
organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their metabolites, non-persistent pesticides, dioxins/furans and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived measurements of exposure (urine,
blood etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams.
CDC has published both the "National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," (March 2001) and
the "Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" (January 2003), which reflect
findings from NHANES, including the body burden of lead and other pollutants measured in the blood stream or
urine. These reports provide ongoing surveillance of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals.
The 2001 report provides measurements of exposure to 27 chemicals based on blood and urine samples from people
participating in NHANES 1999. The 2003 Report expands the number of chemicals to 100 (in order to include
carcinogenic volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic PAHs, dioxins and furans, PCBs, trihalomethanes,
haloacetic acids, and carbamate and organochlorine pesticides). Future reports will provide additional details on
exposure among different populations ~ stratifying results by gender, race/ethnicity, age, urban/rural residence,
education level, income, and other characteristics. CDC will track these indicators over time. Data will assist both
public health officials and regulators in analyzing: 1) trends over time; 2) the effectiveness of public health efforts;
and 3) exposure variations among sub-populations.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance plans are available from both CDC and the contractor, WESTAT, as
outlined on the web site under the NHANES section.
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. CDC/NCHS has an elaborate data quality checking
procedure outlined on the web site under the NHANES section.
Data Limitations: The NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam. For this reason, there
are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and examinations and special weighting techniques are
needed. Additionally, the number of records in each date file varies depending on gender and age profiles for the
specific components. Demographic information is collected but not available at the highest level of detail in order
to protect privacy. Body burden data are evidence of human exposure to toxic substances; however, linkages
between evidence of exposure and source of exposure have yet to be made for many substances. In the case of lead,
the correlation is strongly documented.
Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design, appropriate sampling
weights should be used in analyses to produce national estimates. Several statistical methodologies can be used to
account for unequal probability of the selection of sample persons. The methodologies and appropriate weights are
IV-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
provided at www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes3/cdrom/nchs/MANUALS/NH3GUIDE to help generate
appropriate error estimates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to an annual schedule. The sample design allows for
limited estimates to be produced on an annual basis and more detailed estimates to be produced on 3-year samples.
References: "National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," (NCEH Publication Number 01-
0164, Atlanta, GA: March 2001), [On the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm or
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report/]; more extensive findings from NHANES are in the "Second National Report
on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" (NCEH Publication Number 03-0022: Atlanta, GA January
2003) [On the web at [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm, or http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/].
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduce the potential for risks from leaks and spills by ensuring the safe
disposal of large capacitors and transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Performance Database: PCB Annual Report Database.
Data Source: Annual Reports from commercial storers and disposers of PCB Waste.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data provide a baseline for the amount of safe disposal of PCB waste
annually. By ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment such as transformers and capacitors coming out of
service, and contaminated media such as soil, and structures from remediation activities, the Agency is reducing the
exposure risk of PCBs that are either already in the environment or may be released to the environment through
spills or leaks.
QA/QC Procedures: The Agency reviews, transcribes, and assembles data into the Annual Report Database.
Data Quality Reviews: The Agency contacts data reporters, when needed, for clarification of data submitted.
Data Limitations: Data limitations include missing submissions from commercial storers and disposers, and
inaccurate submissions. PCB-Contaminated Transformers, of PCB concentrations 50 to 499 parts per million (ppm),
and those that are 500 ppm PCBs or greater are not distinguished in the data. Similarly, large and small capacitors
of PCB waste may not be differentiated. Data are collected for the previous calendar year on July 1 of the next year
creating a lag of approximately one year. Despite these limitations, the data do provide the only estimate of the
amount of PCB waste disposed annually.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals Program, PCB
Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic human health associated
with environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce as measured by Risk Screening
Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model.
Performance Database: The RSEI Model 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 TRI data lag, performance data will be unavailable for this measure
when the FY 2005 Annual Performance Report is prepared. The data will be available for the FY 2007 report.
Data Source: The wide variety of data used within RSEI were collected by Federal Agencies (U.S. Census Bureau,
EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, Commerce Dept. - National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of
Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife), state agencies (air emissions and stack data, fishing license data), and research
organizations (Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), etc.) for a variety of national/state programmatic and
regulatory purposes, and for industry-specific measurements.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The RSEI Model generates unique numerical values known as "Indicator
Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and exposed population. Indicator Elements are
unitless (like an index number, they can be compared to one-another but do not reflect actual risk), but proportional
to the modeled relative risk of each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). Indicator
Elements are risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical, release
medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Each Indicator Element represents a unique release-
exposure event and together these form the building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest. 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 only meaningful when compared to other scores
produced by RSEI. The measure is appropriate for year-to-year comparisons of performance. Depending on how
the user wishes to aggregate, RSEI can address trends nationally, regionally, by state or smaller geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA annually updates the data sources used within the RSEI model to take advantage of the
most recent and reliable data. For example, TRI facilities self-report release data and occasionally make errors. TRI
has QC functions and an error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes. Because of the unique screening-
level abilities of the RSEI model, it is possible to identify other likely reporting errors and these are forwarded to the
TRI Program for resolution. In developing the RSEI model, OPPT has performed numerous Q/C checks on various
types of data. For instance, locational data for on-site and off-site facilities have been checked and corrected, and
this information is being supplied to the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) and the Envirofacts database.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has gone through a
quality review process tailored to the specific data and managed by the providers of the data sources. RSEI includes
data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), U.S. Census, etc. All were 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
(U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model, Peer
Reviews. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html).
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 ground-truthed 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 data from a variety of EPA and other sources. TRI data may have errors that are
not corrected in the standard TRI QC process. In the past, RSEI has identified some of these errors and corrections
have been made by reporting companies. Drinking water intake locations are not available for all intakes
nationwide. Where intake locations are known only at the county-level, RSEI distributes the drinking water
population between all stream reaches in that county. This could increase or decrease the RSEI risk-related results
depending on the pattern of TRI releases on the stream reaches in that county. If the actual uptake location is on a
highly polluted stream reach, this approach would underestimate risk by distributing the drinking water population
to less-polluted reaches. In coastal areas, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) water releases may go directly
to the ocean, rather than nearby streams. EPA is in the process of systematically correcting potential errors
regarding POTW water releases. These examples are illustrative of the data quality checks and methodological
improvements that are part of the RSEI development effort. Data sources are updated annually and all RSEI values
are recalculated on an annual basis.
Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and groundtruthing studies have
been used to address model accuracy (documentation is provided on the RSEI Home Page -
www.epa.gov/oppt/env_ind/). 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.,
SDWIS and Reach File databases) and incorporates newer data into the RSEI databases. Such improvements can
IV-28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
also lead to methodological modifications in the model. Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous years are
captured by the annual updates of the RSEI model.
References: The methodologies used in RSEI were documented for the 1997 review by the EPA Science Advisory
Board. The Agency has provided this and other technical documentation on the RSEI Home Page. The Agency is
revising the existing methodology documents concurrent with the second beta release of RSEI Version 2.0. [RSEI
Home Page - www.epa.gov/oppt/env_ind/]
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model, Peer
Reviews. Available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html
RSEI Methodology Document (describes data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
RSEI User's Manual (PDF, 1.5 MB) explains all of the functions of the model, the data used, and contains tutorials
to walk the new user through common RSEI tasks (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/users_manual.pdf).
A more general overview of the model can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF, 23 KB)
(http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices that accompany these two documents and provide additional information
on the data used in the model. The Appendices are as follows:
Technical Appendix A (PDF, 121 KB) - Listing of All Toxicity Weights for TRI Chemicals and Chemical
Categories
Technical Appendix B (PDF, 290 KB) - Physicochemical Properties for TRI Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB) - Derivation of Model Exposure Parameters
Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB) - Locational Data for TRI Reporting Facilities and Off-site Facilities
Technical Appendix E (PDF, 44 KB) - Derivation of Stack Parameter Data
Technical Appendix F (PDF, 84KB) - Summary of Differences Between RSEI Data and TRI Public Data Release
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Establish short-term exposure limits for 52 percent of chemicals identified as
highest priority by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program.
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the cumulative number of chemicals with "Proposed",
"Interim", and/or "Final" AEGL values.
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 Oak Ridge National Laboratory's scientists. 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 Academies of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After review and comment
resolution, the National Research Council under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences (NAS)
publishes the values as final.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The work of the National Advisory Committee's Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL) 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, have developed standard operating procedures (SOPs), which are followed by the program. These have
been published by the National Academies Press and are referenced below.
AEGL values approved as "proposed" and "interim" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the
National Academies of Sciences represent the measure of the performance. The work is assumed to be completed at
the time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures 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.
IV-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is the first time acute exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals
have been established according to a standardized process and put through such a rigorous review.
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/).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of risk management plan audits completed
Performance Database: There is no database for this measure.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and the states provide the data to EPA headquarters.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are collected and analyzed by surveying EPA's Regional offices to
determine how many audits of facilities' risk management plans (RMPs) have been completed.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, with review at the Regional and
Headquarters' levels.
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.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
1909 Boundary Waters Agreement
1978 U.S./Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1989 US/USSR Agreement on Pollution
1991 U.S./Canada Air Quality Agreement
1996 Habitat Agenda, paragraph 43bb
Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251_1387)]
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
Endangered Species Act
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC)
North American Free Trade Agreement
Pollution Prevention Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Section 112r, Accidental Release Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
U.S./Canada Agreements on Arctic Cooperation
World Trade Organization Agreements
IV-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Communities
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Communities
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Science & Technology
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Building and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$313,167.7
$64,392.8
$2,324.5
$75.1
$243,985.7
$744.1
$1,645.5
327.5
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$317,572.9
$83,379.9
$1,031.4
$0.0
$230,500.0
$666.8
$1,994.9
372.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$319,958.4
$85,676.7
$1,039.9
$0.0
$230,500.0
$721.7
$2,020.1
369.6
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$2,385.4
$2,296.80
$8.50
$0.00
$0.00
$54.9
$25.2
(2.4)
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Brownfields
Environment and Trade
Environmental Justice
Geographic Program: Other
Infrastructure Assistance: Brownfields
Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Regulatory Innovation
US Mexico Border
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$3,074.7
$140.8
$4,069.6
$48,605.7
$22,613.4
$1,769.6
$3,813.9
$0.0
$81,953.4
$113,426.6
$6,724.4
$4,967.7
$0.0
$22,007.9
$313,167.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$6,710.4
$0.0
$3,544.0
$60,000.0
$27,820.6
$1,702.6
$5,044.3
$0.0
$120,500.0
$50,000.0
$2,541.2
$6,484.4
$8,755.7
$24,469.7
$317,572.9
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$6,801.1
$0.0
$3,531.7
$60,000.0
$28,002.3
$1,723.1
$5,130.5
$2,000.0
$120,500.0
$50,000.0
$2,642.7
$5,784.8
$8,799.5
$25,042.7
$319,958.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$90.7
$0.0
($12.3)
$0.0
$181.7
$20.5
$86.2
$2,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$101.5
($699.6)
$43.8
$572.9
$2,385.4
IV-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
OBJECTIVE: COMMUNITY HEALTH
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
U.S. - Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
In the US-Mexico Border Region, sustain and restore community health, and preserve the ecological systems that support them
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Increase the number of residents in the Mexico border area who are protected from health risks, beach pollution and damaged
ecosystems from nonexistent and failing water and wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved water and
wastewater service.
Increase the number of residents in the Mexico border area who are protected from health risks, beach pollution and damaged
ecosystems from nonexistent and failing water and wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved water and
wastewater service.
FY 2003
Enacted
900,000
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
990,000
FY 2005
Request
1.5 Million
Performance Measures:
Enacted Pres. Bud. Request
People in the Mexico border area protected from health risks 1.5 Million People
because of adequate water and wastewater sanitation systems
funded through the Border Environmental Infrastructure
Fund.
Number of additional people in Mexico border area protected 900,000 990,000 People
from health risks, because of adequate water & wastewater
sanitation systems funded through border environmental
infrastructure funding.
Baseline: The US-Mexico border region extends more than 3,100 kilometers (2,000 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean,
and 62.5 miles on each side of the international border. More than 11.8 million people reside along the border and this figure is
expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2020. Ninety percent of the population reside in the 14 impaired, interdependent sister
cities. Rapid population growth in urban areas has resulted in unplanned development, greater demand for land and energy,
increased traffic congestion, increased waste generation, overburdened or unavailable waste treatment and disposal facilities, and
more frequent chemical emergencies. Rural areas suffer from exposure to airborne dust, pesticide use, and inadequate water
supply and treatment facilities. EPA, other US Federal agencies, and the Government of Mexico have partnered to address these
environmental problems.
World Trade Organization - Regulatory System
In 2005 Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental reviews
Performance Measures:
Number of environmental reviews initiated by FTAA
countries following the enactment of the 2002 Trade
Promotion Act (TPA).
FY 2003
Enacted
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Request
3
Countries
Baseline:
As of the end of FY 2003, two environmental reviews (Chile and Singapore) have been initiated since the enactment of the 2002
Trade Promotion Act.
Revitalize Properties
In 2005 Leverage jobs by assessing, promoting the cleanup and reuse of brownfields properties.
In 2004 Leverage jobs through revitalization efforts.
In 2004 Leverage or generate funds through revitalization efforts.
In 2004 Make Brownfields property acres available for reuse or continued use.
In 2003 Leverage jobs through revitalization efforts.
In 2003 Leverage or generate $0.9 B through revitalization efforts.
IV-32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Estimated number of Brownfield property acres available for
reuse or continued use.
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Number of Brownfields job training participants trained.
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
Number of Tribes supported by Brownfields cooperative
agreements.
FY 2003
Enacted
472 (qtr 3)
1,202 (qtr 3)
62% (qtr 3)
$0.3B(qtr3)
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1,000
25
no target
no target
2,000
200
65%
S0.9B
FY 2005
Request
1,000
25
60
no target
5,000
200
65%
Sl.OB
no target
assessments
grants
properties
acres
jobs
participants
trainees placed
funds
Tribes
Baseline: By the end of FY 2002, the Brownfields program had leveraged 19,646 jobs, provided job training to 913 individuals, placed an
average of 65% of job training participants, and leveraged a total of $6.7 billion. Data reported for FY 2002 reflect
accomplishments up to the 3rd quarter of FY 2002.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
Performance Database: The Brownfields Management System (BMS) contains the performance information
identified in the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include:
AP 5 - Number of Properties with Assessment Completed with Pilot Funding
AP 1 1 - Number of Cleanup/Construction Jobs Leveraged
AP 12 - Number of Cleanup Dollars Leveraged
AP 13 - Number of Redevelopment Jobs Leveraged
AP 14 - Number of Redevelopment/Construction Dollars Leveraged
JT 2 - Number of Participants Completing Training
JT 3 - Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
RLF - Number of Properties with cleanup activities completed using Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
funds.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports prepared by Cooperative Agreement Award Recipients
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: Cooperative Agreement Award Recipients submit reports quarterly on
project progress. Data on performance measures are extracted from quarterly reports by an EPA contractor.
Afterwards, data are forwarded to Regional Pilot managers for review and finalization.
"Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities" is the aggregate of the "Number of redevelopment jobs
leveraged" and the "Number of cleanup/construction jobs leveraged." "Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds
leveraged at Brownfields sites" is the aggregate of "Number of Cleanup Dollars Leveraged" and the "Number of
Redevelopment/Construction Dollars Leveraged." "Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed" based
on the "Number of Participants Completing Training" and the "Number of Participants Obtaining Employment."
IV-33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
"Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding" is the aggregate of "Number of Properties with
cleanup activities completed using BCRLF funds" and the number of properties cleaned up using cleanup grant
funding (to be included in amended database. See "New and Improved Data or Systems").
QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are reviewed by EPA Regional pilot
managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of key measure definitions. Reports are produced
monthly with detailed data trends analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews.
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Management System (BMS) has been migrated to an oracle
platform and is currently being modified to include all reporting elements required in grantee terms and conditions.
Key field definitions will be updated.
References: NA
FY 2005 Performance Measure: People in the Mexico border area connected to potable water and wastewater
collection and treatment systems (cumulative).
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported quarterly by Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADBank). Data field is
A population -served by potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Data Source: 1) U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census [Reference A, below]; 2) Data on U.S. and
Mexican populations served by A certified® water/wastewater treatment improvements from the BECC; 3) Data on
projects funded from the NADBank.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summation of population from BECC and NADBank. U.S. Census data
are assumed to be correct and suitable.
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. [Reference B]
Data Quality Review: 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: Same as census data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References:
A. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990).
Institute* Nacional de Estadistica, Geografm y Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990).
B. Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American Development
Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
IV-34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 External Performance Measure: Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental
reviews.
Performance Database: None- Manual Collection
Data Source: Project / Trade Agreement Specific
QA/QC Procedures: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis, but will require objective
assessment of: (1) tasks completed, (2) compliance with new regulation, and (3) progress toward project goals and
objectives.
Validating measurements under international programs presents several challenges. Technical assistance projects,
for instance, typically target developing countries, which often do not have sound data collection and analysis
systems in place. Non-technical projects, such as assistance in regulatory reform, frequently must rely on more
subjective measures of change, such as the opinions of project staff or reviews by third-party organizations,
including other U.S. government organizations, in judging the long-term efficacy of the assistance provided.
EPA works with its trading partners on capacity building projects, which establish the framework and tools to ensure
increased trade does not degrade the environment and harm human health. Projects will help prevent pollution at the
source, and will be tailored to partner-country needs and be built on past US assistance. Tracking development and
implementation of these projects presents few challenges because EPA project staff maintains close contact with
their counterparts and any changes become part of a public record. Assessing the effectiveness of these projects or
the inclusion of environmental provisions in trade agreements is more subjective. Aside from feedback from
Agency project staff, EPA relies, in part, on feedback from its trading partners in the target countries and regions
and from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other third parties. Because EPA works to establish long-
term relationships with its trading partners, the Agency is often able to assess environmental improvements in these
countries and regions for a number of years following implementation of the trade agreement.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Annual Appropriations Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) (Public Law 107-118).
Computer Security Act
Congressional Review Act
Congressional Review Act
Contract law
CPRKAof 1986
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 (42 U.S.C. 110001-11050)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 (42 U.S.C. 110001-11050)
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act (7 U.S.C. 5404)
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act (ERDDA) of 1981
EPA's Assistance Regulations
EPA's Environmental Statues
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12915 - Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
Executive Order 12916 - Implementation of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North
American Development Bank Plain Language Executive Order
Executive Order 13148, "Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management"
Federal Acquisition Regulations
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.)
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
IV-35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552)
Government Management Reform Act (1990)
Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)
National Environmental Education Act
National Environmental Policy Act
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
North American Free Trade Agreement
Paperwork Reduction Act Amendment of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
PPA (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Privacy Act
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8001.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Toxic Substance Control Act section 14 (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601-2692)
Toxic Substances Control Act
Trade Act of 2002 (TPA)
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
World Trade Organization Agreements
IV-36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Ecosystems
Environmental Program & Management
Buildings & Facilities
State & Tribal Assistance Grants
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$171,169.4
$142,880.5
$325.5
$27,146.2
$817.2
546.0
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$160,698.1
$119,336.0
$386.5
$40,000.0
$975.6
384.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$200,844.5
$154,173.6
$422.6
$45,000.0
$1248.4
390.8
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$40,146.5
$34,837.6
$36.1
$5,000.0
$272.8
5.9
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$16,157.3
$5,731.7
$6,855.9
$14,206.2
$12,940.0
$21,755.2
$16,810.7
$4,383.0
$2,666.6
$2,225.5
$0.0
$22,712.0
$17,129.2
$27,596.1
$171,169.4
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$4,762.5
$0.0
$20,000.0
$20,000.0
$20,777.7
$18,104.2
$4,431.7
$954.8
$477.4
$15,000.0
$19,094.2
$19,299.9
$17,795.7
$160,698.1
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$4,789.7
$0.0
$20,000.0
$25,000.0
$20,816.6
$21,194.8
$4,477.8
$954.8
$477.4
$45,000.0
$19,229.3
$19,752.8
$19,151.3
$200,844.5
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$27.2
$0.0
$0.0
$5,000.0
$38.9
$3,090.6
$46.1
$0.0
$0.0
$30,000.0
$135.1
$452.9
$1,355.7
$40,146.5
IV-37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
OBJECTIVE: ECOSYSTEMS
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
In 2005 Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries
that are part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
In 2004 Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).
In 2003 Restored and protected estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).
Performance Measures:
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of
the National Estuary Program, (incremental)
FY 2003
Actuals
118,171
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
25,000
Acres
Baseline: As of January 2000, there were over 600,000 acres of habitat preserved, restored, and/or created.
Gulf of Mexico
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2004 Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 14 priority impaired coastal river and estuary segments.
In 2003 Assisted the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 14 priority impaired coastal river and estuary
segments.
Performance Measures:
Impaired Gulf coastal river and estuary segments
implementing watershed restoration actions (incremental).
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River
Basin that affect the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico, as measured by the five year running average
FY 2003
Actuals
95
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
71/5 yr rollavg
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Less than
14,128
Segments
KM2
Baseline: There are 95 coastal watersheds at the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) scale on the Gulf coast. The Gulf of Mexico Program
has identified 12 priority coastal areas for assistance. These 12 areas include 30 of the 95 coastal watersheds. Within the 30
priority watersheds, the Gulf States have identified 354 segments that are impaired and not meeting full designated uses under
the States' water quality standards. The 1996-2000 running average size = 14,128 km2.
Wetland and River Corridor Projects
In 2005 Working with partners, achieve a no net loss of wetlands.
Performance Measures:
Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and
States, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Clean Water
Act section 404 regulatory program
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetland acres
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
No Net Loss
No Net Loss
Acres
Acres
Baseline: Annual net loss of an estimated 58,500 acres. In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, a baseline and initial reporting will
begin in FY 2004 on net loss of wetlands in the CWA Section 404 regulatory programs.
Great Lakes Assessment and Implementation Actions
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved by at least 1
point.
In 2004 Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and
trophic status.
IV-38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In 2003 End of year data will be available in 2004 to verify that Great Lakes ecosystem components have improved, including progress
on fish contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic status.
Performance Measures:
Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great
Lakes top predator fish.
Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term) in the Lake Erie
Central Basin.
Average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and
walleye samples will decline.
Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the
Great Lakes basin will decline
Restore and delist Areas of Concern (AOCs) within the Great
Lakes basin
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great Lakes (cumulative from 1997).
Baseline: In 2003, Great Lakes rating of 20 on a 40 point scale where the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem
indicators based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. The trend (starting with 1972 data)
for toxics in Great Lakes top predator fish is expected to be less than 2 parts per million (the FDA action level) but far above the
Great Lakes Initiative target or levels at which fish advisories can be removed. The trend (starting with 1992 data) for PCB
concentrations in the air is expected to range from 50 to 250 picograms per cubic meter. In 2002, no Areas of Concern had been
delisted. 2.1 million yards of remediated sediments are the cumulative number of yards from 1997 - 2001.
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved
enough so that there are 91,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
In 2005 Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by
1.06 million tons per year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels
In 2004 Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2003 Improved habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
Data Lag
Data Lag
18.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
5%
7%
10
5%
5%
3
2.9
Annual decrease
Annual decrease
Ug/1
Annual Decrease
Annual Decrease
AOC
Cubic Yards/M
Performance Measures:
Reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen (M/lbs), phosphorus
(M/lbs), and sediment loads (tons) entering Chesapeake Bay.
(cumulative)
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the
Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
FY 2003
Actuals
89,659
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
90,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
74/8.7/1.06
91,000
Lbs/Lbs/Tons
Acres
Baseline: In 1984, there were 37,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2002, baseline for nitrogen loads
was 51 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads was 8.0 million pounds per year; and sediment loads was 0.8 million tons per
year.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National
Estuary Program (NEP).
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. We have also designed a web page that, in an educational fashion with graphics and images, highlights
habitat loss/alteration, as well as, the number of habitat acres protected and restored by habitat type, based on
specific NEP reports. This enables 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.
IV-39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made in the previous year)
and annual progress reports are used, along with other implementation tracking materials, to document the number
of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA then aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a
national total for the entire Program. EPA is confident that the data presented are as accurate as possible, based on
review and inspection by each NEP prior to reporting to EPA. In addition, EPA conducts regular reviews of NEP
implementation to help ensure that information provided in these documents is generally 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. We recognize that 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 adequate surrogate, and is a suitable measure of on-the-ground progress
made toward EPA's annual performance goal of habitat protection and restoration in the NEP.
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 guidance provided by EPA to prepare their
reports, and to verify the numbers. EPA then confirms that the national total accurately reflects the information
submitted by each program. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was
approved in July 2001. EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called a quality management plan
(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 that involves the collection or use
of environmental data.)
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of 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: We are examining the possibility of geo-referencing the data in a geographic
information system (GIS).
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data submitted by the individual
National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically, and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators
Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT). PIVOT data is publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July
2001) is available on the Intranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Annually, beginning in FY04 and in partnership with the Corps of
Engineers and states, achieve no net loss of wetlands in 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 has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its RAMS permit tracking
database. The Corps has compiled national Section 404 wetland permitting data for the last 10 years reflecting
wetland acres avoided (through the permit process), permitted for impacts, and mitigated.
IV-40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Corps national data for the last 10 years (1993-2002):
• 44,000 acres mitigated/year
• 6,000 acres avoided/year
= Total of 50,000 acres/year of wetlands offset or preserved while allowing for development activities
(approximately 24,000 acres of impacts authorized per year).
Data Source: Data included in RAMS is generally collected by private consultants hired by permit applicants or
Corps Regulatory Staff. Data input is generally done by Corps staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RAMS was designed to be an administrative aid in tracking permits, thus
it lacks 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 is also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit without utilizing its original developers.
QA/QC Procedures! Historically, there has not been a high level of QA/QC with regard to data input into RAMS.
Its antiquated format and numerous administrative fields discourage use. Lack of standard terms and classification
also make all aspects of data entry problematic.
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.
In response to the NAS, GAO, and other recent critiques of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation,
EPA and the Corps in conjunction with the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation
released the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan on December 26, 2002. The Plan includes 17 tasks that the
agencies will complete over the next three years to improve the ecological performance and results of compensatory
mitigation.
One of the major goals articulated in the 2002 interagency National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) is
improving data collection and availability (including tracking and reporting on acreage and function gains and
losses). MAP includes three action items the agencies will complete over the next two years that will improve their
ability to track and report on wetlands gains and losses. Additional details of the milestones shown below are
contained in the MAP: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetiands/guidance/index.htmMniitigation.
• The Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, in conjunction with states and Tribes, compiling and
disseminating information regarding existing mitigation-tracking database systems in FY04.
• Building upon the analysis of existing mitigation data base systems, the Corps, EPA, USDA, DOI, and
NOAA will establish a shared mitigation database by FY05.
• Utilizing the shared database, the Corps, in conjunction with EPA, USDA, DOI, and NOAA, will provide
an annual public report card on compensatory mitigation to complement reporting of other wetlands
programs by FY05.
Data Limitations: As previously noted, RAMS currently provides the only national data on wetlands losses and
gains in the Section 404 Program. Also, as previously noted, there are a number of concerns regarding the
conclusions that can be drawn from these numbers. Data quality issues include:
1. Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage from the
aggregate "mitigation" acreage reported
2. Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually undertaken, and how much of
that total was successful
IV-41
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
3. Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred, and
4. Limitations on identifying acres "avoided," as the figure is only based on the difference between original
proposed impacts and impacts authorized. Often, permit applicants who are aware of the 404 program's
requirements to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, make initial site selection and site design decisions
that minimize wetland impacts prior to submitting a permit application. Such avoidance decisions benefit
applicants, as their applications are more likely to be accepted and processed with minor changes. This
behavioral influence that the program engenders is difficult to capture and quantify, but contributes
considerable undocumented "avoided" impacts.
Error Estimate: Not applicable
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the need for improved 404 tracking.
Corps is currently piloting a new national permit tracking database called ORM to replace its existing database
(RAMS). As part of the MAP, the Corps is working with EPA and the other Federal agencies and states to ensure
that the version of ORM that is ultimately deployed will adequately track wetlands gains and losses. ORM is being
designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
• Type of impacts
• Type of habitat impacted (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin classification systems)
• Type of habitat mitigated (Using Hydrogeomorphic and Cowardin classification systems)
• Type of mitigation (restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation)
• Amount of mitigation by type
• Differentiate stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
• Spacial tracking via GIS for both impact and mitigation sites (planned)
References:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/index. html#mitigation
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
Performance Database: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will collect and track the
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) or other entities (coastal wetlands), and by
local authorities who provide data to EPA (drinking water quality, beach closures).
Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and reported at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conferences (SOLEC). The document, "Implementing Indicators 2003-A Technical Report," presents detailed
indicator reports as prepared by primary authors (attending the conference), including references to data sources
found in the summary document.
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, Areas of Concern
(AOC), sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality,
and air toxics deposition). Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is
good. Authors of SOLEC indicator reports use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of the
ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when available. Each of the
index components 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 place1 that conforms to the EPA
quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
IV-42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been given "outstanding" evaluations in previous
peer and management reviews2. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
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 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, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
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: The data system specifically for this index is being developed. Data continue to
be collected through the SOLEC process 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.
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
3. 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.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD and online at
.
5. 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.
6. 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
.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye.
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) base monitoring program1. The key fields
for this measure are Lake Trout and Walleye (Lake Erie). Reporting starts with 1972 data for Lake Michigan and
1977 or 1978 data for the other Lakes. In FY05, the database will contain QA/QC data from fish collected in 2003.
Data Source: GLNPO's ongoing base monitoring program, which has included work with cooperating
organizations such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey (USFWS).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of selected organic contaminants
in sport fish from the Great Lakes to: (1) determine time trends in contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of
contaminants on the fishery, and (3) to assess potential human and wildlife exposures from consuming contaminated
sport fish. The data provide two elements of contaminant concentrations: The first element includes data from 600-
700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish) from each of the lakes (walleye,
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in Lake Erie). These data are used to assess time trends in organic contaminants in the
IV-43
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
open waters of the Great Lakes, using fish as biomonitors. These data can also be used to assess the risks of such
contaminants on the health of this important fishery, and on wildlife that consume them.
The second element of the indicator focuses on assessing human exposures via consumption of popular sport fish.
Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from each lake (rainbow trout,
Salmo gairdneri, in Lake Erie) are collected during the fall spawning run, and composite fillets (5 fish) are analyzed
for organic contaminants to assess human exposure. The coho salmon spawn at 3 years of age, and so their body
burdens reflect a more focused and consistent exposure time compared to the lake trout which may integrate
exposures over 4 to 10 yrs depending on the lake. Chinook salmon spawn after 4-5 years, and have higher (and thus
more detectable) concentrations than the coho salmon and also represent a consistent exposure time. Thus time
trends for consistent age fish as well as consistent size fish can be assessed from these data.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management system in place2 that conforms to the EPA
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 fish contaminant program is approved and available on request3.
The draft field sampling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is being revised and will be submitted to the
GLNPO QA officer for review by September 30, 20034.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been evaluated as "outstanding" in previous peer
and management reviews5. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies
with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: The top predator fish (lake trout) program was designed specifically for lakewide trends. It is
not well suited to portray localized changes.
Error Estimate: The goal of the fish contaminant program is to detect a 20% change in each measured contaminant
concentration between two consecutively sampled periods at each site. The program was designed to reach that goal
with 95% confidence.
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.
"The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A technical and Scientific Model For Interstate Environmental
Monitoring:' September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
"Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Fish Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishcontaminants.html
"Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants" , Dr. Deborah Swackhammer, Univ a/Minnesota
Environ. Occ. Health, School of Public Health, EPA Grant #GL97524201-2, 7///02.De Vault, D. S. 1984.
Contaminant analysis of fish from Great Lakes harbors and tributary mouths. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-84-003.
De Vault, D. S. 1985. Contaminants in fish from Great Lakes harbors and tributary mouths. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 14: 587-594.
De Vault, D. S., P. Bertram, D. M. Whittle and S. Rang. 1995. Toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes. State of the
Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Chicago and Toronto, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office and Environment Canada.
De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, P. W. Rodgers and T. J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant trends in lake trout and walleye
from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22: 884-895.
De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1983. Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run coho salmon. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-83-001.
De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1984. Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run coho salmon. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-85-004.
IV-44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
De Vault, D. S., J. A. Weishaar, J. M. Clark and G. Lavhis. 1988. Contaminants and trends in fall run coho salmon.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 14: 23-33.
De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E. Rundberg. 1985. Contaminant trends in lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 15: 349-356.
De Vault, D. S., W. A. Willford, R. J. Hesselberg and D. A. Nortrupt. 1986. Contaminant trends in lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15:
349-356.
Eby, L. A., C. A. Stow, R. J. Hesselberg and J. F. Kitchell. 1997. Modeling changes in growth and diet on
polychlorinated biphenyl bioaccumulation in "Coregonus hoyi". Ecological Applications 7(3): 981-990.
Giesy, J. P., et al. 1995. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes influenced sections and above dams of three
Michigan rivers: III. Implications for health of bald eagles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 29: 309-321.
Giesy, J. P., J. P. Ludwig and D. E. Tillett. 1994. Deformities in birds of the Great Lakes region: assigning causality.
Environmental Science and Technology 28(3): 128A-135A.
Giesy, J. P., et al. 1994. Contaminants in fishes from Great Lakes-influenced sections and above dams of three
Michigan rivers. II: Implications for health of mink. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 27:
213-223.
Glassmeyer, S. T., D. S. De Vault, T. R. Myers and R. A. Kites. 1997. Toxaphene in Great Lakes fish: a temporal,
spatial, and trophic study. Environmental Science and Technology 31: 84-88.
Glassmeyer, S. T., K. E. Shanks and R. A. Hites. 1999. Automated toxaphene quantitation by GC/MS. Analytical
Chemistry in press.
GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes. USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office. .
Jeremiason, J. D., K. C. Hornbuckle and S. J. Eisenreich. 1994. PCBs in Lake Superior, 1978-1992: decreases in
water concentrations reflect loss by volatilization. Environmental Science and Technology 28(5): 903-914.
Kubiak, T. J., Harris, H. J., Smith, L. M., Schwartz, T. R., Stalling, D. L., Trick, J. A., Sileo, L., Docherty, D. E.,
and Erdman, T. C. 1989. Microcontaminants and reproductive impairment of the Forster's Tern on Green Bay, Lake
Michigan -1983. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 18: 706-727.
Mac, M. J. and C. C. Edsal. 1991. Environmental contaminants and the reproductive success of lake trout in the
Great Lakes. J. Tox. Environ. Health. 33: 375-394.
Mac, M. J., T. R. Schwartz, C. C. Edsall and A. M. Frank. 1993. Polychlorinated biphenyls in Great Lakes lake trout
and their eggs: relations to survival and congener composition 1979-1988. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19(4):
752-765.
Madenjian, C. P., T. J. DeSorcie, R. M. Stedman, E. H. J. Brown, G. W. Eck, L. J. Schmidt, R. J. Hesselberg, S. M.
Chernyak and D. R. Passino-Reader. 1999. Spatial patterns in PCB concentrations of Lake Michigan lake trout.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(1): 149-159.
Madenjian, C. P., R. J. Hesselberg, T. J. Desorcie, L. J. Schmidt, R. M. Stedman, L. J. Begnoche and D. R. Passino-
Reader. 1998. Estimate of net trophic transfer efficiency of PCBs to Lake Michigan lake trout from their prey.
Environmental Science and Technology 32(7): 886-891.
Pearson, R. F., K. C. Hornbuckle, S. J. Eisenreich and D. L. Swackhammer. 1996. PCBs in Lake Michigan water
revisited. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 30(5): 1429-1436.
IV-45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Rodgers, P. W. and W. R. Swain. 1983. Analysis of poly chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) loading trends in Lake
Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 9: 548-558.
Safe, S. H. 1994. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and
implications for risk. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2): 87-149.
Schmidt, L. I, and Hesselberg, R. J. 1992. A mass spectroscopic method for analysis of AHH-inducing and other
polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and selected pesticides in fish. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 23: 37-44.
Stow, C. A. 1995. Factors associated with PCB concentrations in Lake Michigan salmonids. Environmental Science
and Technology 29(2): 522-527.
Stow, C. A., S. R. Carp and J. F. Amrheim. 1994. PCB concentration trends in Lake Michigan coho (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 51: 1384-1390.
Stow, C. A. and S. R. Carpenter. 1994. PCB accumulation in Lake Michigan coho and chinook salmon: individual-
based models using allometric relationships. Environmental Science and Technology 28: 1543-1549.
Stow, C. A., S. R. Carpenter, L. A. Eby, J. F. Amrhein and R. J. Hesselberg. 1995. Evidence that PCBs are
approaching stable concentrations in Lake Michigan fishes. Ecological Applications 5: 248-260.
Stow, C. A. and S. S. Qian. 1998. A size-based probabilistic assessment of PCB exposure from Lake Michigan fish
consumption. Environmental Science and Technology 32: 2325-2330.
Swackhammer, D., J. Charles and R. Hites. 1987. Quantitation of toxaphene in environmental samples using
negative ion chemical ionization mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 59: 913-917.
Swackhammer, D. L. 1996. Studies of polychlorinated biphenyls in the Great Lakes. Issues in Environmental
Science and Technology 6: 137-153.
Swackhammer, D. L. and R. A. Hites. 1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation of organochlorine compounds in
fishes from Siskiwit Lake. Environmental Science and Technology 22: 543-548.
Swackhammer, D. L. and A. Trowbridge. 1997. LMMBS Methods Compendium: Vol. 2 Organics and Mercury
Sample Analysis Techniques, Chapter 1, Section 042. USEPA. 905-R-97-012b.
Trowbridge, A. G. and D. L. Swackhammer. 1999. Biomagnification of Toxic PCB Congeners in the Lake Michigan
Foodweb. Bioaccumulative Toxic Compounds in the Environment. R. Lipnick, D. Muir, J. Hermens and K. C.
Jones. Washington, DC, ACS Symposium Series Monograph: in review.
"Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
Swackhammer, D. L. 2001. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
Swackhammer, D.L. February 2002. "Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants." Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin
will decline.
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated atmospheric deposition
network : (IADN) operated jointly with Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data, collected through the joint
US/Canadian Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program and includes, PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides. Monitoring
results from 2003 will be reported in 2005.
IV-46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data. Data also come through in-
kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies, with Great Lakes' States, and with Canada.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each lake, which are
supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are located in remote areas and are meant
to represent regional background levels. Concentrations from the master stations are used for the performance
measure. Concentrations from the satellite stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to
demonstrate the importance of urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes.
Air samples are collected for 24 hours using hi-volume samplers containing an adsorbent. Precipitation samples are
collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory analysis protocols generally call for solvent extraction of the organic
sampling media with addition of surrogate recovery standards. Extracts are then concentrated followed by column
chromatographic cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down to small volume (about 1 mL) and injection (typically
1 uL) into GC-ECD or GC-MS instruments.
All IADN data are loaded and quality controlled using the Research Database Management System (RDMQ), a
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program. RDMQ provides a unified set of quality assured data, including flags
for each data point that can be used to evaluate the usability of the data. Statistical summaries of annual
concentrations are generated by the program and used as input into an atmospheric loading calculation. The
loadings calculation is described in detail in the Technical Summary referenced below. However, the averaged
annual concentrations rather than the loadings are used in the performance measure.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a Quality Management system in place, which conforms to the EPA quality
management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management2. Quality
Assurance Project Plans are in place for the laboratory grantee, as well as for the network as a whole. A jointly-
funded QA contractor conducts laboratory audits and tracks QA statistics. Data from all contributing agencies are
quality-controlled using the SAS-based system.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's quality management system has been evaluated as "outstanding" in previous peer
and management reviews3. This program has a joint Canadian US quality system and workgroup that meets twice a
year. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards4.
A regular set of laboratory and field blanks is taken and recorded for comparison to the IADN field samples. In
addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal standards is used extensively in the analyses. A jointly-funded
QA contractor conducts laboratory audits and intercomparisons and tracks QA statistics. As previously mentioned,
data from all contributing agencies are quality-controlled using a SAS-based system.
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under emphasize urban contributions to
deposition; thus although the data is very useful for trends information, there is less assurance of the
representativeness of deposition to the whole lake. There are gaps in open lake water column organics data, thus
limiting our ability to calculate atmospheric loadings.
Error estimate: Concentrations have an error of +/- 40%, usually less. Differences between laboratories have been
found to be 40% or less. This is outstanding given the very low levels of these pollutants in the air and the difficulty
in analysis. The performance measure examines the long-term trend.
New/Improved Data or Systems: GLNPO expects to post joint data that has passed quality review to <
http://binational.net/ >, a joint international web site, and to the IADN website at < www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >.
References:
1. "Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Air Indicators."
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/atmospheric.html
Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or the agency project plans, which can be
found on the IADN resource page at:http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/resources/resources e.html
Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the Draft "Technical Summary of Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition 1997-2002". The former can also be found on the IADN resource page.
IV-47
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
4. "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan - Revision 1.1. Environment
Canada and USEPA. June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Cumulative total of Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin that
have been restored and delisted.
Performance Database: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the cumulative total Areas of
Concern (AOC) and post that information http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html> Forty-three AOCs have been
identified: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five that are shared by
both countries. GLNPO is tracking the 31 which are within the US or shared; however, none of these are currently
restored and delisted.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the
International Joint Commission (IJC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is in regular
communication with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of State and the IJC, and is responsible for
coordinating and overseeing the de-listing of Areas of Concern.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management system in place1 that conforms to the EPA
quality management order and is audited every 3 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 reviews2. 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:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system once there are any de-listed US or Binational
Areas of Concern. Information regarding Areas of Concern is currently available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes remediated.
(cumulative from 1997)
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two different formats. The first is a
matrix that shows the cumulative total of contaminated sediment that was remediated in the Great Lakes basin from
1997 to 2002 for each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with sediment remediation. The second
format depicts the yearly totals for sediment remediation projects graphically. These databases are reported
approximately one year after the completion of work.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various state and Federal project managers across
the Great Lakes region. 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
IV-48
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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. This 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
likely not be reported by GLNPO
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment remediation in the Great Lakes show
the amount of sediment remediated 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.
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 tracking database
houses information on the calculated amount of sediment remediated at individual sites as provided by the project
managers. It is then GLNPO's responsibility to determine if the data are usable based upon the information sheet
provided by the project managers.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by management, individual
project managers, and GLNPO's Sediment Team Leader prior to being released. GLNPO's quality management
system has been given "outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews. 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. 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 estimated data. A
specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in place.
References:
1. Collier, D.C. 2002. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
2. Collier, D.C. 2002. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office files.
3. Collier, D.C. 2002. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake
Bay.
Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay. Total acres surveyed and estimated additional acres from
1978 through 2002, excluding the years 1979-1983 and 1988 when no surveys were conducted. FY 2005 Annual
Performance Report for this measure will be based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year
(2004). We expect to receive the preliminary survey results for calendar year 2004 in April 2005.
Data Source: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences provides the data (via an EPA Chesapeake Bay Program grant
to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences). EPA has confidence in the third party data and believes the data are
accurate and reliable based on QA/QC procedures described below.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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
IV-49
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
monitoring began in 1978 and is ongoing. Methods are described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on
file for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.eduhttp://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/).
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 EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. 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 and resource manager
members of the workgroup. The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee where extensive peer review
by Bay Program managers occurs.
No audits have been conducted by the Inspector General (IG) or evaluations by the General Accounting Office
(GAO), OMB and National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). No deficiencies identified in external
reviews. Data are not identified as an "Agency-Level or Material Weakness" as a result of EPA decisions under the
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.
Data Limitations: Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in the years 1979-1983 and 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.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g., photointerpretation tools) were made over
the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in Chesapeake Bay.
References:
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 and also at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-
2002.xls. The SAV indicator is published at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=88.
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
• Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels (2002 Baseline: 51 million
pounds/year reduced.)
• Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels. (2002 Baseline: 8 million
pounds/year reduced.)
• Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels. (2002 Baseline: 0.8 million
tons/year reduced.)
Performance Database: Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay data files used
in the indicator are located at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been
collected in 1985, 2000, 2001, and are expected on an annual basis after 2001. There is a two year data lag. Load
data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC.
FY 2005 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the 2003 data collection.
We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar year 2003 in April 2005.
Data Source: State/district data are provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input into the Chesapeake
Bay Program Watershed Model.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality. Data are consolidated by watershed
boundaries at the state level and provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input into the watershed model.
IV-50
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are described at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/data/index.htm. (refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output Database, Phase
4.3). For more information contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins .kate@epa. gov or Jeff Sweeney
jsweenev(@,chesapeakebav.net
QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the databases used indicating the design, construction
and maintenance conforming to existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data and PCS standards for point source
data. State offices also have documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on USDA
NRCS standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's protocols and guidance. BMPs are
traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming from nonpoint sources such as urban/suburban runoff,
agriculture, and forestry activities. Some people also think of nutrient reduction technology used at wastewater
treatment plants as a point source BMP, however, in the traditional sense, BMPs have been used to describe the suite
of practices used to reduce pollutant loads coming from agricultural, forest, and urban/suburban lands. References
include: the USDA NRCS Technical Guide and Appendix H from the Chesapeake Bay Program (contact Russ
Mader at mader.russ(@,epa.gov or Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate(@,epa.govX Quality assurance program plans are
available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions before input to the
watershed model. Model results are also reviewed and approved before release to the web site. Processes are
reviewed by the Tributary Strategy Workgroup of the Nutrient Subcommittee. The model itself is given a quarterly
peer review by an outside independent group of experts.
No audits have been conducted by the Inspector General (IG) or evaluations by the General Accounting Office
(GAO), OMB and National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). No deficiencies identified in external
reviews. Data are not identified as an "Agency-Level or Material Weakness" as a result of EPA decisions under the
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.
Data Limitations: Data collected from voluntary collection programs are not included in the database, even though
they may be valid and reliable. The only data submitted by state and local governments to our office are data that
are required for reporting under the cost share and regulatory programs. State and local governments are aware that
additional data collection efforts are being conducted by non-governmental organizations and that several entities
are involved in using BMPs, however, they are done independently of the cost share programs and are therefore not
reported.
Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, mis-classification, incorrect georeferencing, mis-documentation
or mistakes in the processing of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently under development and
will be completed in 2005. The new version(phase 5) will have increased spatial resolution and ability to model the
effect of management practices. The phase 5 watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and Federal
agencies. Contact Gary Shenk gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm
References:
See http://www.chesapeakebav.net/data/index.htm. refer to CBP Watershed Model Scenario Output Database, Phase
4.3. Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate(@,epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney jsweenev(@,chesapeakebav.net
The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay indicator are published at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/status.cfm?sid=186. The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay data files
used in the indicator are located at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls.
See "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix
H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A Report of the
Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD,
August 1998, available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall
aquatic system health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report.
IV-51
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to
reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Performance Database: (1) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide Survey metadata (data housed at National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Data Center, Silver Spring, Maryland). Funds for this
research are provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program
(NOAA/COP)
(2) Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) - Gulf surveys.
Data Source: (1) Hydrographic data are collected during annual surveys of the Louisiana continental shelf.
Nutrient, pigment and station information data are also acquired. The physical, biological and chemical data
collected are part of a long-term coastal Louisiana dataset. The goal is to understand physical and biological
processes that contribute to the causes of hypoxia and use the data to support environmental models for use by
resource managers.
(2) The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a state/Federal/university program for
collection, management and dissemination of fishery-independent data and information in the southeastern United
States
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: (1) During the shelfwide cruise, data is collected along transects from the
mouth of the Mississippi River to the Texas border. Information is collected on a wide range of parameters,
including conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD), light penetration, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients,
phytoplankton, and chlorophyll. Hydrographic, chemical, and biological data from two transects of Terrebonne Bay
on a monthly basis, and bimonthly, off Atchafalaya Bay. There is a single moored instrument array in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that collects vertical conductivity/temperature data, as well as near-surface,
mid, and near-bottom oxygen data; an upward directed Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) on the seabed
measures direction and speed of currents from the seabed to the surface. There is also an assortment of nutrient and
light meters.
Station depths range from 3.25 to 52.4 meters. The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer
bottom dissolved oxygen less than 2 (mg. L). Northern end stations of transects are chosen based on the survey
vessel's minimum depth limits for each longitude.
Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and optical
properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and phaeopigments, nutrients, salinity, suspended sediment, and
phytoplankton community composition are collected from the surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.
QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or Quality Management Plan; however,
the procedures related to data collection are covered in the metadata files.
SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) is based on information contained in the SEAMAP Gulf and South
Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort between National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.
Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of an environmental monitoring program in the Gulf of Mexico
include efforts to document the temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypoxia, and to collect basic hydrographic,
chemical and biological data related to the development of hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection
protocols and data are presented to and reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task
Force (the Task Force) in support of the adaptive management approach as outlined in the Action Plan for Reducing,
Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action Plan).
(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the SEAMAP Information
System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service - Southeast Fisheries Science Center
(NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by the collecting agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to
entry into the system. Data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2002 have been entered into the system,
and data from 2003 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.
IV-52
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Limitations: Some existing monitoring for shelf-wide conditions are currently only performed each year
primarily, but not exclusively, during July. Resources to conduct them limit the spatial boundaries of some of these
existing monitoring efforts. Experience with the datasets has shown that when data are plotted or used in further
analysis, outlying values may occasionally be discovered.
Error Estimate± (1) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as the error allowance for both SeaBird and Hydrolab
oxygen sensors.
References:
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001. Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC.
Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman. 1999. Characterization of Hypoxia.
Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program
Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean productivity program. Estuaries
17:900-3
Rabalais, Nancy N., WJ. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner ; Comparison of continuous records of near-bottom dissolved
oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407
SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty
1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act
1996 Habitat Agenda
1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
US-Canada Agreements
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
IV-53
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and
restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and
developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Enhance Science and Research
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Science & Technology
Buildings and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$380,878.7
$52,443.0
$34,740.6
$286,526.2
$5,525.0
$1,643.9
1,230.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$420,040.9
$61,444.1
$14,267.8
$336,318.6
$5,680.5
$2,329.9
1,230.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$394,823.7
$62,016.9
$8,361.6
$316,109.2
$6,131.7
$2,204.3
1,230.0
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($25,217.2)
$572.8
($5,906.2)
($20,209.4)
$451.2
($125.6)
-0.4
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Global Change
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Fellowships
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Endocrine Disrupters
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Human Health Risk Assessment
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$5,436.9
$13,161.9
$22,354.9
$163,550.7
$32,664.7
$2,040.8
$13,669.8
$30,959.2
$7,075.1
$850.2
$27,536.0
$61,578.5
$380,878.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$8,948.6
$12,984.7
$21,528.6
$190,730.8
$36,784.8
$6,402.8
$0.0
$28,999.9
$9,002.7
$1,603.8
$36,495.0
$66,559.2
$420,040.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$13,028.7
$8,044.0
$20,689.6
$177,407.5
$29,017.7
$8,261.6
$0.0
$22,751.7
$9,037.3
$1,707.2
$36,832.2
$68,046.2
$394,823.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$4,080.1
($4,940.7)
($839.0)
($13,323.3)
($7,767.1)
$1,858.8
$0.0
($6,248.2)
$34.6
$103.4
$337.2
$1,487.0
($25,217.2)
IV-54
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Research
Research to Support FQPA
In 2005 Provide high quality exposure, effects and assessment research results that support the August 2006 reassessment of current-use
pesticide tolerances to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs so that, by 2008, EPA will be able to characterize key factors
influencing children's and other subpopulations' risks from pesticide exposure.
Performance Measures:
Children's exposure data and tools for assessing aggregate
exposure to residential-use pesticides
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
09/30/05
data/tools
Baseline: The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires EPA to review, by August 2006, the pesticide tolerances for pesticides in use
as of August 1996. EPA's Office of Research Development (ORD) has been conducting research to generate new and improved
exposure and effects tools (data, methods, and models) to assist the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in meeting this 2006
requirement. In FY05, ORD will provide OPP with a summary document highlighting the key results from ORD's exposure
research program over the period 2000-2005. ORD will also provide OPP with validated children's pesticide exposure data and
exposure factor data from multiple exposure field and laboratory studies. This high quality data will fill critical data gaps and
eliminate the need for using many default assumptions currently used in the risk assessment process. An analysis of these results
will also be performed to help identify remaining critical children's exposure data needs. ORD will also provide OPP with a
suite of exposure-to-dose models that can be used to estimate aggregate pesticide exposures for children (by age and
developmental life stage) and other susceptible subpopulations. These state-of-the-art models will be used by OPP to develop
pesticide exposure distributions and address key issues associated with variability and uncertainty in exposure. With improved
information, EPA can better protect public health from risks posed by pesticide use. Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations
by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and successful
performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. Reviewers will also
qualitatively determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Risk Assessment
In 2005 Through FY2005 initiate or submit to external review 28 human health assessments and complete 12 human health assessments
through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This information will improve EPA's and other decisionmakers' ability
to protect the public from harmful chemical exposure
Performance Measures:
Complete 4 human health assessments and publish their
results on the IRIS website
Initiate or submit to external peer review human health
assessments of at least 20 high priority chemicals.
Complete 8 human health assessments and publish their
results on the IRIS website
Initiate or submit to external peer review human health
assessments of 8 high priority chemicals
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
4
20
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
assessments
assessments
assessments
assessments
Baseline: IRIS is an EPA data base containing Agency consensus scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may
result from exposure to chemical substances found in the environment. IRIS currently provides information on health effects
associated with chronic exposure to over 500 specific chemical substances. IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of
qualitative and quantitative health information in support of the first two steps of the risk assessment process, i.e., hazard
identification and dose-response evaluation. Combined with specific situational exposure assessment information, the
information in IRIS may be used as a source in evaluating potential public health risks from environmental contaminants. IRIS
is widely used in risk assessments for EPA regulatory programs and site-specific decision making. Updating IRIS with new
scientific information is critical to maintaining information quality and providing decision makers with a credible source of
health effects information. Achieving this APG will provide EPA and other decision makers with needed updates to IRIS so
they can make informed decisions on how to best protect the public from harmful chemical exposure. In FY 2004, the Agency
will complete 4 human health assessments and initiate or submit for external peer review human health assessments of at least 20
high priority chemicals. In FY 2005, EPA will complete 8 more assessments and initiate or submit for review an additional 8
assessments, for a two-year total of 12 completed assessments and 28 initiated or submitted for review.mmBeginning in FY
2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality,
and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. Reviewers
will also qualitatively determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for
research.
IV-55
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Regional Scale Ecosystem Assessment Methods
In 2005 The baseline ecological condition of Western streams will be determined so that, by 2008, a monitoring framework is available
for streams and small rivers in the Western U.S. that can be used from the local to the national level for statistical assessments of
condition and change to determine the status and trends of ecological resources.
In 2004 Provide Federal, state and local resource managers with a means to more effectively determine long-term trends in the condition
and vitality of Eastern U.S. stream ecosystems through measurements of changes in the genetic diversity of stream fish
populations.
Performance Measures:
A study of fish genetic diversity that demonstrates the power
of this modern approach for evaluating condition and vitality
of biotic communities to Federal, state and local resource
managers.
Baseline ecological condition of Western streams determined
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1
FY 2005
Pres.
1
Bud.
report
report
Baseline: This FY 2005 APG represents the first statistically-valid baseline for Western stream condition from state-based data. Although
States and Tribes are required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to monitor the condition of all their waters, they typically are only
able to monitor at, and make scientifically defensible statements about, targeted sites that account for only a small percentage of
their total waters. The monitoring framework used in the achievement of this APG removes scientific uncertainty by using a
probability design approach (random sampling) to provide a more cost-effective, scientifically-defensible alternative for
determining the condition of all the streams of a State or Tribe. EPA is transferring this approach to our State, Tribal, and EPA
Regional partners in the Western U.S. so that they can determine the status and trends of their ecological resources. This
monitoring framework also provides the scientific basis for identifying problems and needs for action, causes of harm, and
successful mitigation and restoration efforts. This information will ultimately allow EPA to determine its success in achieving
specific environmental outcomes.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and
Development. These evaluations will include an examination of a program's design to determine the appropriateness of a
program's short-, intermediate-, and long-term goals and its strategy for attaining these. Reviewers will also qualitatively
determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations
and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their
progress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Research on Riparian Zone Restoration
In 2005 Provide technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to restore riparian zones, which are critical landscape
components for the restoration of aquatic ecosystems and water quality, so that, by 2010, watershed managers have state-of-the-
science field-evaluated tools, technical guidance, and decision-support systems for selecting, implementing, and evaluating cost-
effective and environmentally-sound approaches to restore ecosystem services as part of watershed management
Performance Measures:
Technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects
to restore riparian zones
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1
tech. guide
Baseline: This FY 2005 APG will provide State, Tribal, Regional, and local watershed managers and restoration practitioners with
technical guidance for selecting, implementing, and evaluating cost-effective and environmentally-sound approaches to restore
ecosystem services. Essential ecosystem services are a result of naturally occurring processes and include such necessities for
human health as a reliable supply of clean water, oxygen, nutrient cycling, and soil regeneration, as well as wildlife habitat and
greenspace. Habitat destruction, invasive species, and non-point source pollutants such as excess nitrogen and eroded sediments
adversely impact ecosystem services by contributing to the loss of ecosystems and/or their functions. Finding effective and
efficient ways to protect and restore ecosystem services is necessary for human, as well as ecological, health. Riparian zones,
i.e. those areas immediately adjacent to river and stream banks, are critical components of any watershed. Without a healthy
riparian zone, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve water quality goals. EPA is evaluating the effectiveness of
riparian restoration techniques as tools to achieve goals such as water quality criteria or the restoration of specific ecosystem
functions, such as denitrification. The guidance represented by this APG will help watershed managers and restoration
practitioners in decision-making and on-the-ground implementation of scientifically- and technically-defensible restoration and
management techniques.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and
Development. Reviewers will also qualitatively determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term
commitments for research.
IV-56
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Exposures and Effect of Environmental Research
In 2005 Provide risk assessors and managers with methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing
and reducing risks to children from environmental agents in schools so that, by 2014, EPA will be able to demonstrate why some
groups of people, defined by life stage, genetic factors, and health status, are more vulnerable than others to adverse effects from
exposure to environmental agents.
Performance Measures:
Methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in
children, and characterizing and reducing risks to children
from environmental agents in schools
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
09/30/05
methods/tools
Baseline: Current risk assessments for children are hampered by the lack of exposure and risk data and by a lack of methods that are
appropriate for children. By FY 2004, EPA expects to have better data on children's exposures and on children's exposure
factors. In FY 2005, research will build upon the improved data on children's exposures by compiling and analyzing the data,
and translating the enhanced knowledge into better methods and approaches for measuring and estimating children's exposure
and risk. The research in FY 2005 will culminate in initial approaches, ready for external peer review, on: how to conduct
children's exposure and risk assessments; how to replace default uncertainty factors with data and distributions; and how to use
biomarkers more appropriately in characterizing children's exposures. In addition, the increased understanding of children's
exposures will provide evaluated methods for reducing their exposures and risks in schools and other indoor environments.
These data, methods, and approaches will significantly improve the reliability, credibility, and transparency of children's risk
assessments used by regulatory decision-makers throughout EPA and will provide to the public and to school and daycare
officials tested methods to reduce children's exposures to chemical pollutants.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and
Development. Reviewers will also qualitatively determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term
commitments for research. Recommendations and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA
research programs and help to measure their progress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Mercury Research
In 2005 Provide information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants from utility boilers so that, by 2010, there is an extensive set
of data and tools available to help industry and federal, state, and local environmental management officials make decisions on
the most cost-effective ways to reduce or prevent mercury releases into the environment.
Performance Measures:
Information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants
from utility boilers
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1
report
Baseline: EPA's Mercury Study Report to Congress identified emissions from coal-fired utilities as one of the most significant contributors
of mercury to the air (http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html). On December 14, 2000, EPA determined that mercury emissions
from coal-fired utilities needed to be regulated. Unless some form of multi-pollutant legislation for utility boilers is passed by
Congress, a Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard (MACT) will be promulgated in December 2004 to control
mercury emissions with full compliance of utilities expected by December 2007. There are a variety of technological options
under development that could be used to more cost-effectively achieve any required mercury reduction. These control
technologies need to be evaluated before utilities make decisions on how to comply. The state-of-the-science on emission
controls for mercury will be advanced by investigating the factors that impact the species of mercury in coal-fired utilities flue
gas and the performance of promising mercury control technologies. Results available by the end of FY 2005 will be
documented and made available for use by utilities and other interested stakeholders.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and
Development. These evaluations will include an examination of a program's design to determine the appropriateness of a
program's short-, intermediate-, and long-term goals and its strategy for attaining these. Reviewers will also qualitatively
determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations
and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their
progress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Homeland Security Research
In 2005 Provide tools, case studies, and technical guidance so that, by FY 2006, first responders and decision-makers will have the
methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction
of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
In 2004 Provide a database of EPA experts on topics of importance to assessing the health and ecological impacts of actions taken
against homeland security that is available to key EPA staff and managers who might be called upon to rapidly assess the
impacts of a significant terrorist event.
IV-57
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In 2004 Provide to building owners, facility managers, and others, methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance safety in
large buildings and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into
indoor air.
In 2004 Verify two point-of-use drinking water technologies that treat intentionally introduced contaminants in drinking water supplies
for application by commercial and residential users, water supply utilities, and public officials.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
9/30/04
09/30/05
09/30/05
verifications
verifications
techs/methods
guidance
database
toolbox
tech. guidance
case studies
Performance Measures:
Verify two treatment technologies for application in
buildings by commercial and residential users, utilities, and
public officials to treat contaminants in drinking water
supplies.
Prepare ETV evaluations on at least 5 new technologies for
detection, containment, or decontamination of
chemical/biological contaminants in buildings to help
workers select safe alternatives.
Through SBIR awards, support as least three new
technologies/methods to decontaminate HVAC systems in
smaller commercial buildings or decontaminate valuable or
irreplaceable materials.
Prepare technical guidance for building owners and facility
managers on methods/strategies to minimize damage to
buildings from intentional introduction of
biological/chemical contaminants.
A restricted access database of EPA experts with knowledge,
expertise, and experience for use by EPA to rapidly assess
health and ecological impacts focused on safe buildings and
water security.
Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the
consequences of chemical/biological attacks in U.S. cities.
Technical guidance for water system owners and operators
on methods/strategies for minimizing damage from
intentional introduction of biological/chemical contaminants
Water system-related case studies that provide a spectrum of
contingency planning situations and responses, including one
specifically focused on the National Capital area
Baseline: EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help
decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical
and/or biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as
well as its response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response
approaches can be identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-makers, and the public.
Examples of the types of products that will be available in FY 2005 include: sampling protocols, efficacy protocols, risk
assessment tools, and threat scenario simulations. These products will enable first responders to better deal with threats to the
public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious materials.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and
Development. These evaluations will include an examination of a program's design to determine the appropriateness of a
program's short-, intermediate-, and long-term goals and its strategy for attaining these. Reviewers will also qualitatively
determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations
and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their
progress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Children's exposure data and tools for assessing aggregate exposure to
residential-use pesticides
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
IV-58
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants from utility
boilers
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children, and
characterizing and reducing risks to children from environmental agents in schools.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to restore
riparian zones.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
IV-59
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Baseline ecological condition of Western streams determined.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Complete 8 human health assessments and publish their results on the IRIS
website
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Initiate or submit to external peer review human health assessments of 8
high priority chemicals
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
IV-60
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the consequences of
chemical/biological attacks in U.S. cities.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Technical guidance for water system owners and operators on
methods/strategies for minimizing damage from intentional introduction of biological/chemical contaminants.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
IV-61
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Water system-related case studies that provide a spectrum of contingency
planning situations and responses, including one specifically focused on the National Capital area.
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
IV-62
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
GOAL 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
STRATEGIC GOAL: Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental
requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human health and
the environment by encouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the
public that promote
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The underlying principles of the activities
within Goal 5 are to improve environmental
performance through compliance with environmental
requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting
environmental stewardship. Working in partnership
with State and Tribal governments, local
communities and other Federal agencies, EPA
identifies and addresses significant environmental
and public health problems, strategically deploys its
resources, and makes use of integrated approaches to
achieve strong environmental outcomes.
Enforcement and Compliance
The Agency is committed to implementing a
"smart enforcement" approach to EPA's mission of
identifying, preventing, and reducing potential
environmental risks and noncompliance and
promoting greater voluntary environmental
stewardship. This approach uses the most appropriate
enforcement or compliance tool to address the most
significant problems to achieve the best outcomes.
Smart enforcement embodies an integrated,
common-sense approach to problem-solving and
decision-making. Simply put, smart enforcement is
the use of an appropriate mix of data collection and
analysis; compliance monitoring, assistance and
incentives; civil and criminal enforcement resources;
and innovative problem-solving approaches; to
address significant environmental issues and achieve
environmentally beneficial outcomes. This approach
requires that the Agency develop and maintain strong
and flexible partnerships with regulated entities and a
well-informed public, in order to foster a climate of
empowerment, and a shared responsibility for the
quality of our nation's land, resources and
communities.
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
While enforcement presents one tool for
achieving the Agency's mission, the diversity of
America's environments (communities, homes,
workplaces and ecosystems) requires EPA to adopt a
multi-faceted approach to protecting the public from
threats that may be posed by pesticides, toxic
chemicals and other pollutants. Throughout its
history, EPA has taken the lead in developing and
evaluating tools and technologies to monitor, prevent,
control, and cleanup pollution. The emphasis of the
Agency's programs in the 1970's and 1980's was to
identify viable options for controlling or remediating
environmental problems. Over the last decade, the
Agency has turned its attention more and more to
pollution prevention (P2) when addressing many
important human health and environmental problems.
A preventive approach requires that the Agency
develop: (1) innovative design and production
techniques that minimize or eliminate environmental
liabilities; (2) holistic approaches to utilizing air,
water, and land resources; and (3) fundamental
changes in the creation of goods and services and
their delivery to consumers. EPA remains committed
to helping industry further prevent pollution by
adopting more efficient, sustainable, and protective
business practices, materials, and technologies.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
establishes pollution prevention as a "national
objective" and the pollution prevention hierarchy as
national policy. The Act requires that pollution
should be prevented or reduced at the source
wherever feasible; that pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally
safe manner; and that, in the absence of feasible
prevention or recycling opportunities, pollution
should be treated. Disposal or other release into the
environment should be used as a last resort. Pollution
Prevention is generally more effective than end-of-
pipe approaches in reducing potential health and
environmental risks in that it helps identify voluntary
programs which:
V-l
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Reduce releases to the environment;
Reduce the need to manage pollutants;
Avoid shifting pollutants from one medium
(air, water, land) to another; and
Protect and conserve energy sources and
natural resources for future generations by
cutting waste and conserving materials.
Increasingly complex environmental problems, such
as the continuing accumulation of greenhouse gases;
poor water quality; increasing urban smog; and
inequities in building and maintaining water
infrastructure; give rise to the need for EPA to
develop and use a broader set of cross media tools.
Shrinking state and Federal budgets also require the
development of new ways to leverage partnerships
with states, local communities and businesses to
produce better environmental results at lower costs.
EPA will work to ensure that governments,
businesses and the public meet Federal legal
environmental requirements, and will encourage and
assist them to adopt environmental stewardship and
to voluntarily exceed current requirements. Through
public recognition, incentives, and sometimes relief
from regulatory mandates, EPA will encourage
environmental stewardship, behavior that goes
beyond compliance with the laws.
Strengthening environmental
partnerships, targeting priorities,
expanding the current collection of
tools, and creating a more
innovative culture to effectively
address challenging problems is
what EPA's innovation strategy is
all about.
EPA is committed to promoting innovation
in strategies to protect the environment, including
new less-polluting technologies. In FY 2002, EPA
launched a comprehensive Innovations Strategy to
drive innovation in all aspects of the Agency's work.
Crafted with input from states and other stakeholders,
the Strategy focuses on transforming EPA into a
more innovative, results-oriented organization by:
• strengthening partnerships with states and
Tribes;
• focusing on a set of priority problems that
are in need of innovative solutions;
• developing tools and approaches that expand
problem-solving capabilities; and,
• fostering an innovation-friendly culture and
set of organizational systems.
The effectiveness of EPA's regulatory
decisions depends on the analysis underlying these
regulations, and the clarity with which they are
presented. Their quality determines how well
environmental programs actually work, and the
extent to which they achieve health and
environmental goals. Sound economic and policy
analysis builds the foundation for EPA to meet its
overarching goals, as well as to wisely use societal
resources.
EPA's emphasis on economic and policy
analysis supports the Agency's continuing effort to
quantify the benefits of its air, land and water
regulations, policies and programs. For example,
determining the value of ecological systems and the
benefits associated with preserving these systems will
be critical over the coming years as the Agency
strives to focus on healthy communities and
ecosystems. Sound economic and policy analysis also
supports EPA's stewardship and improved
compliance goals by fostering consideration of
alternative approaches, such as voluntary programs,
innovative compliance tools, and flexible, market-
based solutions. Sound economic and policy analysis
helps EPA achieve results by documenting and
communicating its decisions, thereby avoiding
challenges to our analyses that might otherwise
impede our ability to implement regulations, policies
or programs.
Tribal Capacity
Since adoption of the EPA Indian Policy in
1984, EPA has worked with Tribes on a government-
to-government basis that affirms the federal trust
responsibility that EPA maintains with federally
recognized Tribe and Tribal government. In terms of
strengthening partnerships with Tribes, under Federal
environmental statutes, the Agency has responsibility
for assuring human health and environmental
protection in Indian Country. EPA has worked to
establish the internal infrastructure and organize its
activities in order to meet this responsibility. The
creation of EPA's American Indian Environmental
Office (AIEO) in 1994 took responsibility for such
efforts and was a further step in ensuring
environmental protection in Indian Country.
Research
Today's environmental innovations extend
beyond scientific and technological advances to
include new policies and management tools that
respond to changing conditions and needs. Examples
V-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
include market-based incentives that provide an
economic benefit for environmental improvement;
regulatory flexibility that gives companies more
discretion related to how specific goals are met; and
disclosure of information about environmental
performance. As a result of these and other
innovations, the nation's environmental protection
system continues to evolve, with a focus on increased
efficiency and effectiveness, and greater
inclusiveness of all elements of society.
MEANS AND STRATEGY
Improving Compliance: A strong enforcement and
compliance program identifies and reduces
noncompliance problems; assists the regulated
community in understanding environmental laws and
regulations; responds to complaints from the public;
strives to secure a level economic playing field for
law-abiding companies; and deters future violations.
The Agency carefully targets its enforcement and
compliance assurance resources, personnel and
activities to address the most significant risks to
human health and the environment, and to ensure that
certain populations do not bear a disproportionate
environmental burden.
In FY 2005 the Agency will identify
national priorities, in consultation with states and
other regulatory partners, to most effectively and
efficiently address significant environmental, public
health, or noncompliance problems, and will use the
most appropriate tool(s) to achieve the best outcomes
culminating with the development and
implementation of performance-based strategies for
FY2005 - FY 2007 national priorities that take into
account environmental justice considerations and a
workforce deployment analysis.
The EPA will also promote compliance in
core program areas by working within the agency and
with our partners to address major problems in
media-specific programs with the most appropriate
tool(s) to achieve the best outcomes. These efforts
will be aided by use of a facility "Watch List" that
identifies facilities with chronic noncompliance
problems. EPA will use compliance data to identify
problems in need of EPA or state attention, to
monitor performance of Regional and media-specific
program elements, and to improve the effectiveness
of the program by incorporating lessons learned into
program operations.
The Agency's "smart enforcement"
approach uses the most appropriate enforcement or
compliance tools to address the most significant
problems to achieve the best outcomes. This
approach includes:
• Compliance Assistance and Incentives: The
Agency's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program uses compliance
assistance tools to encourage compliance
with regulatory requirements and reduce
adverse public health and environmental
problems. To achieve compliance, the
regulated community must first understand
its regulatory obligations, and then learn
how to best comply with those obligations.
EPA supports the regulated universe by
assuring that requirements are clearly
understood, and by helping industry identify
cost-effective options to comply through the
use of pollution prevention and innovative
technologies. EPA also enables other
assistance providers (e.g., states,
universities) to provide compliance
information to the regulated community.
• Compliance Monitoring: The Agency
reviews and evaluates the activities of the
regulated community to determine
compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, permit conditions and
settlement agreements and to determine
whether conditions presenting imminent and
substantial endangerment exist. The
majority of work- years devoted to
compliance monitoring are provided by the
regions to conduct investigations, on-site
inspections and evaluations, and perform
monitoring, sampling and emissions testing.
Compliance monitoring activities are both
environmental media- and sector-based. The
traditional media-based inspections and
evaluations 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 environmental goals included in the
EPA Strategic Plan.
• Enforcement: The Enforcement Program
addresses violations of environmental laws,
to ensure that violators come into
compliance with these laws and regulations.
The program achieves the Agency's
environmental goals through consistent, fair
and focused enforcement of all
environmental statutes. The overarching
goal of the enforcement program is to
protect human health and the environment,
V-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
targeting its actions according to degree of
health and environmental risk. Further, it
aims to level the economic playing field by
ensuring that violators do not realize an
economic benefit from non-compliance, and
seeks to deter future violations.
Auditing and Evaluation Tools: Maximum
compliance requires the active efforts of the
regulated community to police itself. EPA
will continue to investigate options for
encouraging self-directed audits and
disclosures. It will also continue to measure
and evaluate the effectiveness of Agency
programs in improving compliance rates and
provide information and compliance
assistance to the regulated community.
Further, the Agency will maintain its focus
on developing innovative approaches,
through better communication, fostering
partnerships and cooperation, and the
application of new technologies.
Partnering: State, Tribal and local
governments bear much of the responsibility
for ensuring compliance, and EPA works in
partnership with them and other Federal
agencies to promote environmental
protection. EPA also develops and maintains
productive partnerships with other nations,
to ensure and enforce compliance with US
environmental standards and regulations.
NEPA Federal Review: EPA fulfills its
uniquely federal responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare
and submit Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS), to identify potential
environmental consequences of major
proposed activities, and develop plans to
mitigate or eliminate negative impacts. The
Agency maximizes its use of NEPA review
resources by targeting its efforts toward
potentially high-impact projects, and by
promoting cooperation, innovation, and
working towards a more streamlined review
process.
International: EPA will continue to
cooperate with states and the international
community to enforce and ensure
compliance with cross-border environmental
regulations, and to help build their capacity
to design and implement effective
• environmental regulatory, enforcement and
environmental impact assessment programs.
Improving Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation: Preventing
pollution through regulatory, voluntary, and
partnership actions, that is, educating and changing
the behavior of the public, is a sensible and effective
approach to sustainable development while protecting
our nation's health. Two groups with significant
potential to effect environmental change are industry
and academia. The Agency has successfully
implemented a number of pollution prevention (P2)
programs with both of these groups. These programs
address the market for products through the
purchasing and supply chain, emphasize certain
sectors for additional targeted technical assistance,
provide support for State and Tribal infrastructure,
and work to reduce the number and amount of toxic
chemicals in use by finding alternative chemicals and
alternative industry processes.
• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing:
Because of the enormous span of private and
public sector activities which would benefit
from a prevention-based approach, EPA's
P2 programs necessarily cover a wide
variety of informational and capacity
building activities. For example, the Agency
works to improve the market for
environmentally "greener" products though
voluntary programs, the Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program, and
the Green Suppliers Network. EPP provides
guidance and carries out a variety of
initiatives and outreach activities for a wide
constituency, including federal agencies.
Under the EPP Program, EPA will help
purchasers identify those products that
generate the least pollution, consume fewest
non-renewable natural resources, and
constitute the least threat to human health
and to wildlife. The Green Suppliers
Network enables large manufacturers to
actively engage all levels of their supply
chain in the development of good business
approaches to prevent pollution.
• Pollution Prevention State Grants: The
development and support of State
infrastructure is essential for providing small
and medium size businesses, government
and schools with the opportunities to change
and to test new technologies, processes and
alternatives. A vital component of our
strategy is the continuation of the Pollution
V-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Prevention State Grant Program. In FY
2005, EPA will provide $7 million to States
and Tribes to support their efforts to provide
industry with technical assistance,
information sharing, and outreach. The
grants also support promising, innovative
ideas for preventing pollution.
Technical Assistance: Sector-based
technical assistance is another method to
accomplish our mission. The Resource
Conservation Challenge is a major national
effort to find flexible, yet more protective
ways to conserve our valuable resources
through pollution prevention, waste
reduction and energy recovery activities that
will improve public health and the
environment. EPA is working to address
environmental problems in the electronics,
buildings, hospitals, paper production, and
priority chemicals areas under this
comprehensive approach. Similarly, in an
effort to expand voluntary pollution
prevention strategies to the healthcare
sector, the Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment (H2E) Program works with
hospitals and health care facilities to
eliminate mercury use and reduce hospital
wastes.
Green Chemistry: EPA works to help
industry further prevent pollution by
adopting more efficient, sustainable and
protective business practices, materials, and
technologies. EPA's Green Chemistry
Program supports research and fosters
development and implementation of
innovative chemical technologies to prevent
pollution in a scientifically sound, cost-
effective manner. The Green Engineering
Program works to incorporate "green" or
environmentally conscious thinking and
approaches in the daily work of engineers,
especially of chemical and environmental
engineers. Similarly, EPA's Design for the
Environment (DfE) Industry Partnership
Program promotes integration of cleaner,
cheaper, and smarter pollution prevention
solutions into everyday business practices.
NEPA Federal Review: EPA fulfills its
uniquely federal responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare
and submit Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS), to identify potential
environmental consequences of major
proposed activities, and develop plans to
mitigate or eliminate negative impacts. The
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
Program maximizes its use of NEPA review
resources by targeting its efforts toward
potentially high-impact projects, and by
promoting cooperation, innovation, and
working towards a more streamlined review
process.
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC):
This program focuses on recovering
materials and energy, either by converting
wastes into products and energy directly or
as a result of process and product redesigns
that produce these benefits. We will closely
coordinate our RCC efforts with the
Agency's other pollution prevention
activities, potentially revising our strategies
or targets to focus on materials and energy
recovery through recycling when source
reduction is not a feasible solution. The
Agency is also working with its partners to
identify additional goals that will reflect our
expanded effort, beginning in 2003, to
increase recovery of materials and energy
and reduce releases of priority chemicals in
waste. We expect these new goals to be in
place by 2004, as the program becomes fully
operational.
State Innovation Grant Program: EPA will
develop and promote innovative
environmental protection strategies that
achieve better environmental results at a
lower cost and also reward environmental
stewardship. In collaboration with its state
and Tribal partners, the Agency will
continue to focus its efforts on innovations
that will help small businesses and
communities improve both their
environmental performance and their bottom
lines. A cornerstone of the Agency's
Innovation Strategy is reaching out to states
and tribes through the State Innovation
Grant Program to promote, support and
facilitate innovation in state and Tribal
environmental programs. The Grant
Program allows states and tribes to test
innovative ideas, such as using
Environmental Management Systems in the
permitting system to improve environmental
results while achieving resource efficiencies.
Regulatory and Economic Management and
Analysis: EPA is exploring the potential for
more integrated, holistic, regulatory and
V-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
non-regulatory approaches at a facility level,
building on experience with federal and
State pilot programs for permitting and
pollution prevention. EPA sees facility-wide
approaches as holding the possibility of
obtaining better environmental results, while
eliminating unnecessary regulatory burdens.
These approaches should help stimulate
pollution prevention, and help facilities
obtain the maximum benefit from use of
environmental management systems. The
Agency will augment programs such as
EPA's National Environment Performance
Track Program, which recognize and reward
superior environmental performance and
motivate improvements. Under its Sector
Strategies Program, EPA will also tailor
environmental performance improvement
efforts to particular industry sectors.
• Small Business: EPA has undertaken an
effort to review the current Agency Small
Business Strategy. The new Strategy will
guide the Agency in future efforts to
understand the operations and needs of small
businesses, consider those needs when
developing and implementing programs and
policies that affect them, and work
effectively with the small business
community to improve environmental
performance.
Building Tribal Capacity: EPA's strategy for
Tribes has three major components. First, work with
Tribes to create an environmental presence for each
federally recognized Tribe. An environmental
presence allows most Tribes to support at least one or
two persons working in their community to build a
strong, sustainable environment for the future. These
people perform vital work by assessing the status of a
Tribe's environmental condition and building an
environmental program tailored to that Tribe's needs.
Another key role of this workforce is to alert
EPA of serious conditions requiring attention in the
near term so that, in addition to assisting in the
building of Tribal environmental capacity, EPA can
work with the Tribe to respond to immediate public
health and ecological threats. Second, provide the
information needed by the Tribe to meet EPA and
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. Third, provide the opportunity for
implementation of Tribal environmental programs by
Tribes, or directly by EPA, as necessary.
Managing and Improving Environmental Data:
Through the Environmental Information Exchange
Network (http://www.exchange network.net), EPA
will continue to provide funding to states, tribes, and
territories to encourage and promote their data
integration efforts and participation in the Network.1
These grants will allow states and tribes to create
"next generation" environmental data systems that
integrate air, water, and waste data and provide the
regulated community with efficient and reliable
electronic means for reporting compliance
information consistent with the President's
Management Agenda and the goals of e-Government.
The National Environmental Information
Exchange Network grant program encourages state
and other partners' data integration efforts and their
participation in the Network. State, Tribal, and EPA
data on the Network will both facilitate
understanding of various environmental issues and
serve as a precursor to understanding the data needed
to fully comprehend environmental conditions and
trends and, thus, make better-informed environmental
and human health decisions.
This program has four main parts: Network
Readiness; Implementation; Collaboration; and
Support Grants. These grants will increase state and
Tribal capacity to integrate their environmental data,
reduce reporting burden, enhance electronic
reporting, provide public access to data, and
participate in the Exchange Network.
Enhancing Science and Research: EPA's
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship strategic
goal is designed to protect human health and the
environment by improving environmental behavior
through regulatory and non-regulatory means. Under
this goal, EPA strives to use science and research
more strategically and effectively to inform Agency
policy decisions and guide compliance, pollution
prevention, and environmental stewardship efforts. In
order to strengthen the scientific evidence and
research supporting environmental policies and
decisions, EPA works with its partners and
stakeholders to identify research needs and set
priorities. The Agency continues to conduct research
on pollution prevention and new and developing
technologies, with an overall aim of promoting
conservation of energy and natural resources,
pollution prevention, recycling, and other aspects of
environmental stewardship.
EPA also conducts research to enhance its
V-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
capacity to evaluate the economic costs and benefits
and other social impacts of environmental policies.
These efforts, undertaken in concert with other
agencies, will result in improved methods to assess
economic costs and benefits, such as improved
economic assessments of land use policies and
improved assessments for the valuation of children's
health, as well as other social impacts of
environmental decision-making.
The Agency will also continue to
characterize, prevent, and clean up contaminants
associated with high priority human health and
environmental problems through the development
and verification of improved environmental tools and
technologies. EPA will incorporate a holistic
approach to pollution prevention by assessing the
interaction of multiple stressors threatening both
human and environmental health, and by developing
cost-effective responses to those stressors. Research
will also explore the principles governing sustainable
systems and the integration of social, economic, and
environmental objectives in environmental
assessment and management. Emphasis will be on
developing and assessing preventive approaches for
industries and communities having difficulty meeting
pollution standards. In a broader context, the
pollution prevention research program will continue
expanding beyond its traditional focus on the
industrial sectors to other sectors (e.g., municipal)
and ecosystems. The P2 research program will also
focus on developing outcome goals to measure its
performance.
Several mechanisms are in place to ensure a
high-quality research program at EPA. The EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independent
chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
committee, meets annually to conduct an in-depth
review and analysis of EPA's Science and
Technology account. The SAB provides its findings
to the House Science Committee and sends a written
report on the finding to EPA's Administrator after
every annual review. In addition, EPA's scientific
and technical work products undergo either internal
or external peer review, with major or significant
products requiring external peer review. The
Agency's Peer Review Handbook (2nd Edition)
codifies procedures and guidance for conducting peer
review.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND FY 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS
Improve Compliance
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect
human health and the environment through
compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and
enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the
pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated,1
and achieving a 5 percent increase in the number of
regulated entities making improvements in
environmental management practices.2 (Baseline to
be determined for 2005.)
Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation.
By 2008, improve environmental protection
and enhance natural resource conservation on the part
of government, business, and the public through the
adoption of pollution prevention and sustainable
practices that include the design of products and
manufacturing processes that generate less pollution,
the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption
of results-based, innovative, and multimedia
approaches.
Build Tribal Capacity
Through 2008, assist all federally
recognized Tribes in assessing the condition of their
environment, help in building their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to
improve Tribal health and environments, and
implement programs in Indian Country where needed
to address environmental issues.
Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific
evidence and research supporting environmental
'"Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated" is an
EPA measure of the quantity of pollutants that will no
longer be released to the environment as a result of a non-
complying facility returning to its allowable limits through
the successful completion of an enforcement settlement.
(Facilities may further reduce pollutants by carrying out
voluntary Supplemental Environmental Projects.) On-line
compliance information is available to the public via
ECHO, at http://www.epa. gov/echo/.
^'Environmental management practices" refers to a specific
set of activities EPA tracks to evaluate changes brought
about through assistance, incentives, and concluded
enforcement actions. Implementing or improving
environmental management practices—for example, by
changing industrial processes; discharges; or testing,
auditing, and reporting—may assist a regulated facility in
remaining in compliance with environmental requirements.
Further information on environmental management
practices is available at
www. epa. go v/compliance/resources/publications/planning/
caseconc.pdf.
V-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
policies and decisions on compliance, pollution
prevention, and environmental stewardship.
HIGHLIGHTS
Improving Compliance
The Compliance Assistance Program
strategically targets areas where regulated entities
demonstrate an incomplete understanding of how
they can best comply with regulatory requirements.
The Agency's support of industry and government
sector internet-based Compliance Assistance Centers
greatly expands the reach of EPA's compliance
assistance efforts. It provides educational tools and
other assistance, such as workshops and on-site visits,
to help increase understanding of regulatory
obligations, improve environmental management
practices and reduce pollution.
Other tools that are used include compliance
incentives, voluntary programs, and innovative
approaches designed to motivate better
environmental compliance and performance by
individuals, communities, businesses and industry
sectors. The Agency promotes self-policing and
improvement through incentives, such as EPA's
Audit, Small Business and Small Local Governments
policies and the inclusion of environmental
management systems in enforcement actions.
The Agency will continue to work with
states and tribes to target areas that pose risks to
human health or the environment, display patterns of
noncompliance, or include disproportionately
exposed populations. Media-specific, industry sector
and problem-based priorities will be established for
the national program, and will be developed in
conjunction with the Regional offices, with input
from states, tribes, environmental justice
representatives, and other stakeholders.
The Agency's Forensics Support Program
provides technical support, including field sampling
and measurement; forensic analytical chemistry; and
computer forensic imaging, restoration and analysis.
The forensics team consistently provides high-quality
data and analyses, allowing the Agency to
successfully investigate and prosecute the nation's
most complex criminal and civil enforcement cases.
Improving Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
In the 1990's, through the Pollution
Prevention Act, Congress formally established a
national policy to prevent or reduce pollution at its
source whenever feasible. The Act defines P2 as
".. .the use of materials, processes, or practices that
reduce the use of hazardous materials, energy, water,
or other resources and practices that protect natural
resources through conservation or more efficient
use." 3
Major provisions of the Act include:
Providing matching funds for State and local
P2 programs through the PPIS grant
program to promote P2 techniques by
businesses
Establishing a P2 strategy outlining the
Agency's intent to promote source reduction
and collect data on source reduction
Operating a source reduction clearinghouse
Mandating P2 reporting as part of TRI
There are also several Executive Orders that
address Pollution Prevention. For example,
Executive Order 13101, titled Greening the
Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling,
and Federal Acquisition, strengthens federal
mandates to protect the environment and promote
economic growth through the purchase of
environmentally preferable products.4 Using the
purchasing power of the federal government is one
way to help improve the market for environmentally
preferable, recycled content, and bio-based products
while protecting our natural resources and providing
an example for private industry.
The Executive Order (EO) defines
"environmentally preferable" as "products or services
that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health
and the environment when compared with competing
products and services that serve the same purpose."
The EO also states that products or services should be
compared across the entire life cycle - from raw
material acquisition to its final disposal at its end of
life. EPA has several responsibilities under the EO,
including developing guidance on environmentally
preferable purchasing for federal agencies, and
assisting federal agencies with conducting and
documenting pilot projects. EPA has also developed
tools to assist federal purchasers, including a
database of environmental standards, case study of
federal pilot projects, model contract language and
other resources.
3 Pollution Prevention Act. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public
Health and Welfare, Chapter 133, sec. 13101 b. Policy.
4 Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention,
Recycling, and Federal Acquisition - 63 Federal Register
49643. September 16, 1998.
V-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Reducing pollution at its source involves
two types of changes in behavior: making the
greener products available, and increasing the
demand for them. The Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP) Program works to harness the
purchasing power of government to stimulate
demand for "greener" products and services, thereby
fostering manufacturing changes. In FY 2005, the P2
program will shift resources to state grants and other
P2 programs, which have shown significant results.
The P2 research program will be evaluated to
improve its performance and contribution to the
Agency's P2 efforts.
In FY 2005, the Agency also will continue
to identify environmental performance standards by
which products can be evaluated, and invest in the
development of tools, such as life-cycle analysis tools
that businesses and purchasers can use to evaluate the
environmental performance of products. In FY 2005,
the Agency will continue to focus on providing tools,
resources and models to federal agencies on a
number of product categories, including electronics,
janitorial services, and meetings/conferences. EPA
will also continue its efforts to meet its own goals to
green its own facilities and operations, including
purchasing.
The voluntary Green Suppliers Network
(GSN) builds on the premise that cost effective
manufacturing, pollution prevention and
environmental protection can be the result of good
business planning and practice. The GSN uses the
purchasing power of the private sector to achieve
pollution prevention and manufacturing efficiencies
throughout the supply chain. In FY 2005 the GSN
will continue to develop and enhance partnerships
with the aerospace, healthcare/pharmaceutical,
office/home furniture, farm and construction, and
automotive sectors. The Agency expects to explore
GSN with other federal agencies, replication of the
program internationally, and working with new
sectors, such as the truck/bus and appliance
manufacturing sectors.
Through voluntary partnerships with
academia, industry, and other government agencies,
Green Chemistry supports fundamental research in
environmentally benign chemistry and provides a
variety of educational and international activities,
including sponsoring conferences and meetings and
developing tools. The Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award Program recognizes superior
achievement in the design of chemical products, and
continues to quantitatively demonstrate the scientific,
economic, and environmental benefits that green
chemistry technologies offer.5 In FY 2005, the
program will explore ways to increase the number
and effectiveness of incentives, and to reduce the
barriers to mainstreaming green chemistry practices.
Traditionally, engineering approaches to
pollution prevention have been focused on waste
minimization and have not addressed such risk
factors as exposure, fate, and toxicity. EPA's Green
Engineering Program promotes consideration of these
factors in the design, commercialization, and use of
chemical products and the development of feasible,
economical processes that minimize generation of
pollution at the source. In FY 2005, the program will
focus on the implementation of specific activities that
provide quantifiable environmental benefits,
particularly in industrial applications. The program
will continue to partner with research institutions on
their green engineering/sustainable research projects
and collect data on the application of Green
Engineering approaches and tools, with an emphasis
on gathering information from people and
organizations that have already received green
engineering training and have adopted green
engineering approaches.
The Design for the Environment Program
will continue to work with industry sectors to reduce
risks to human health and the environment, improve
performance, and save costs associated with existing
and alternative pollution prevention technologies or
processes. In FY 2005, the program expects to
initiate one to three new projects. The program will
also implement, as part of any new partnership
building activities, evaluation guidelines for
developing and collecting measures, building on
program-wide analysis and evaluation that will be
completed in FY 2004.
Pollution Prevention State Grants provide
funds to build pollution prevention strategies into
State government environmental protection
programs, encourage innovative and non-regulatory
pollution prevention solutions and encourage
government/industry partnerships. Pollution
Prevention State Grants are unique within EPA
because they address cross-media and multi-media
environmental impacts at the source, rather than end-
of-pipe.
The Agency's innovation programs are
demonstrating significant results. For example, in
5 U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Green Chemistry Challenge. Accessed October 1, 2003.
Available at
http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistrv/index.html.
V-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2003, The Performance Track Program added 61
new members, bringing the total number of
members to 320. The Program's first progress
report showed that in FY 2001 Performance Track
facilities reduced energy use by 1.1 million
MMBTUs, reduced hazardous materials use by 908
tons, and increased their use of recycled and reused
materials by 10,823 tons, (www.epa.gov/sectors/)
EPA expanded its partnerships with
industry sectors in FY 2003. Eight new sectors
(agribusiness, cement manufacturing, colleges and
universities, construction, forest products, iron and
steel manufacturing, paint and coatings, and ports)
committed to work collaboratively to improve
environmental management while also addressing
regulatory and other barriers to improve
performance and increase efficiencies.
(www. epa. gov/sectors/)
Past performance demonstrates remarkable
progress in delivering results. For example, in FY
2003, EPA assisted more than ten states in continuing
support of twenty-one innovative projects approved
in previous years and in approving eight new
innovative projects. These projects achieved a broad
range of efficiency gains by: enhancing the
infrastructure to recycle electronic waste,
streamlining permitting, better coordinating non-
point and point sources to meet Total Maximum
Daily Loads, supporting streamlined state
authorization procedures, and improving compliance
monitoring for small drinking water systems. These
projects' also invested in less energy demanding
alternative technology at pulp and paper facilities,
alternative landfill technology to increase landfill
capacity, and increased recycling of hazardous
wastes.
During the same year, EPA also awarded
grants to three states to test innovative concepts in
permitting. First, the funding provided under the
State Innovation Grant Program allowed the State of
Arizona to develop a web-based, Aintelligent@
screening and permit application program for storm
water permits that will increase the efficiency of the
permitting process. Second, Delaware will develop
an auto body sector Environmental Results Program
(ERP) modeled after other state ERP projects, such as
Rhode Island and Florida. The Delaware ERP project
expects to significantly improve environmental
compliance in hundreds of small businesses state-
wide. Third, Massachusetts will develop a watershed-
based permitting program to improve water quality
on a National Heritage Waterway.
The Environmental Results Program model
that originated in Massachusetts has expanded to
seven other states and the District of Columbia with
projects being implemented across seven business
sectors: dry cleaners, printers, photoprocessors, auto
repair facilities, auto salvage yards, auto body shops,
gasoline stations (underground storage tanks and
Stage II vapor recovery systems).
Research
In FY 2005, the Agency will continue its
systems-based approach to pollution prevention,
which will lead to a more thorough assessment of
human health and environmental risks and a more
comprehensive management of those risks. EPA will
improve FY 2005 performance measures to prevent
pollution at its source and continue to evaluate a
small set of environmental technologies through the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
program. ETV is a voluntary, market-based
verification program for commercial-ready
technologies. In FY 2005, the ETV program will
complete 15 additional verifications and two testing
protocols. In addition, the program will evaluate
whether verifications and testing protocols have led
to increased use of environmental technologies.
Additionally, through the National
Environmental Technology Competition (NETC),
based on results from field demonstrations of one-
year in duration, EPA will recognize innovative
technologies that cost-effectively remove arsenic
from drinking water to help small communities meet
the new arsenic drinking water standard. Other work
includes research on market mechanisms and
incentives that will support investigations that
explore the conditions under which financial and
other performance incentives will achieve
environmental objectives at a lower cost or more
effectively than traditional regulatory approaches.
EXTERNAL FACTORS
The Agency's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program's ability to meet its annual
performance goals may be affected by a number of
factors. Projected performance could be impacted by
natural catastrophes, such as major floods or
significant chemical spills, requiring a redirection of
resources to address immediate environmental
threats. Many of the targets are coordinated with and
predicated on the assumption that state and Tribal
partners will continue or increase their levels of
enforcement and compliance work. In addition,
successful conclusion of EPA's enforcement relies on
the Department of Justice to accept and prosecute
V-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
cases. The success of EPA's activities hinges on the
availability and applicability of technology and
adequate resources to modernize and maintain our
information systems. Finally, the regulated
community's willingness to comply with the law will
greatly influence EPA's ability to meet its
performance goals.
Other factors, such as the number of projects
subject to scoping requirements initiated by other
federal agencies, the number of draft/final documents
(Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements) submitted to EPA for review,
streamlining requirements of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the
responsiveness of other federal agencies to
environmental concerns raised by EPA, may also
impact the Agency's ability to meet its performance
goals. The NEPA Compliance workload is driven by
the number of project proposals submitted to EPA for
funding or NPDES permits that require NEPA
compliance, including the Congressional projects for
wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection
facility grants which have increased in recent years.
In the area of pollution prevention, the
Agency's work is almost entirely dependent on
voluntary partnerships, collaboration, and persuasion,
since there are few environmental regulations that set
specific source-reduction requirements. The Design
for the Environment Program seeks partnerships with
industry trade associations to engage jointly in the
development and marketing of products that generate
less pollution. The Green Chemistry Program
challenges industry and the academic community to
step forward with new chemical formulations that
pose fewer risks to human health and the
environment. EPA's strategy of "greening the supply
chain" depends on the willingness of large
manufacturers to voluntarily require their suppliers to
provide environmentally preferable products. These
efforts all depend on our partners' continued
willingness to cooperate in joint endeavors that may
not realize an immediate payoff. EPA's ability to
carry out its voluntary pollution prevention initiatives
could be reduced if partners begin to believe that the
initiatives are not worthwhile, are too risky, or are
otherwise contrary to their best interests. Historically
however, this has not been the case, and the Agency
and industry have worked well together to reduce
pollution.
Finally, our evolving user community will
also affect the success of our information efforts. As
more states and Tribes develop the ability to integrate
their environmental information, we must adjust
EPA's systems to ensure that we are able to receive
and process reports from states and industry under
Agency statutory requirements. Local citizens'
organizations and the public at large are also
increasingly involved in environmental decision-
making, and their need for information and more
sophisticated analytical tools is growing. Further,
shrinking state budgets have underscored the critical
need for the State Innovations Grants Program.
EPA's policy has been, and continues to be,
that Tribes develop the capability to implement
federal programs themselves. However, in working
with Tribes, EPA has realized that "Treatment as a
State" (TAS) may not suit the needs of all Tribes.
Some Tribes with acute pollution sources and other
environmental problems may be too small to support
fully delegated or approved environmental programs.
Other Tribes are wary of seeking TAS status because
it may lead to costly litigation that may in turn lead to
a diminishment of Tribal sovereignty. In the absence
of EPA-approved Tribal programs, EPA generally
faces practical challenges in implementing the federal
programs in Indian Country. EPA will continue to
encourage and work with Tribes to develop their
capability to implement Federal environmental
programs.
Achieving our objectives for Indian Country
is based upon a partnership with Indian Tribal
governments, many of which face severe poverty,
employment, housing and education issues. Because
Tribal Leader and Environmental Director support
will be critical in achieving this objective, the
Agency is working with Tribes to ensure that they
understand the importance of having good
information on environmental conditions in Indian
Country and sound environmental capabilities. In
addition, EPA also works with other Federal
Agencies, the Department of Interior (US Geological
Survey, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of
Reclamation), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Indian Health Service and the
Corps of Engineers to help build programs on Tribal
lands. Changing priorities in these agencies could
impact their ability to work with EPA in establishing
and implementing strategies, regulations, guidance,
programs and projects that affect Tribes.
Strong science is predicated on the desire of
the Agency to make human health and environmental
decisions based on high-quality scientific data and
information. This challenges the Agency to perform
and apply the best available science and technical
analyses when addressing health and environmental
problems that adversely impact the United States.
Such a challenge moves the Agency to a more
integrated, efficient, and effective approach of
V-ll
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
reducing risks. As long as high quality science is a external factors will have a minimal impact on the
central tenant for actions taken by the Agency, then goal.
V-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Resource Summary
(Dollars in thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Improve Compliance
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
Build Tribal Capacity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$662,042.0
$395,964.4
$123,311.5
$70,556.6
$72,209.6
3,492.9
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$712,907.9
$418,998.2
$137,968.5
$78,759.3
$77,181.8
3,489.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$750,556.9
$431,695.1
$169,802.0
$78,931.1
$70,128.7
3,547.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres
Bud
$37,649.0
$12,696.9
$31,833.5
$171.7
($7,053.1)
58.1
V-13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Improve Compliance
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through compliance assistance,
compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced,
treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent increase in the number of regulated entities making
improvements in environmental management practices. (Baseline to be determined for 2005.)
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Improve Compliance
Building & Facilities
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Inspector General
Science & Technology
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$395,964.4
$3,312.5
$346291.1
$16,436.1
$1,475.2
$268.0
$28,181.5
2,555.4
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$418,998.2
$5,158.7
$371,655.6
$13,056.6
$1,827.3
$0.0
$27,300.0
2,529.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$431,695.1
$4,149.5
$383,218.7
$15,116.8
$1,910.1
$0.0
$27,300.0
2,587.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$12,696.9
($1,009.2)
$11,563.1
$2,060.2
$82.8
$0.0
$0.0
58.0
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Compliance Monitoring
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Civil Enforcement
International Capacity Building
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$20,341.8
$5,229.8
$2,609.9
$56,567.5
$40,448.5
$4,661.5
$9,589.0
$25,054.3
$100,366.7
$1,460.7
$4,181.1
$125,453.6
$395,964.4
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$19,900.0
$5,150.0
$2,250.0
$58,155.0
$38,076.8
$4,038.6
$9,257.2
$27,205.8
$108,318.4
$1,051.5
$3,901.9
$141,693.0
$418,998.2
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,900.0
$5,150.0
$2,250.0
$62,216.7
$39,990.7
$4,058.1
$9,370.7
$27,759.1
$113,030.5
$862.4
$3,972.4
$143,219.5
$431,695.1
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,061.7
$1,828.9
$19.5
$113.5
$553.3
$4,712.1
($189.1)
$70.5
$1,526.5
$12,696.9
V-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Non-Compliance Reduction
In 2005 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and
improve EMP.
In 2004 EPA will direct enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental and human health problems.
In 2003 EPA will directed enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental and human health problems.
Performance Measures:
Millions of pounds of pollutants required to be reduced
through enforcement actions settled this fiscal year, (core
optional)
Number of EPA inspections conducted (core required)
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, and
eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs)
requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated
and protection of populations or ecosystems.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs)
requiring implementation of improved env. management
practices.
Number of inspections, civil investigations and criminal
investigations conducted.
Dollars invested in improved env. performance or improved
EMP as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e.,
injunctive relief and SEPs)
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions, as
a result of compliance monitoring.
Percent of concluded enforcement actions that require an
action that results in environmental benefits and/or changes
in facility management or information practices.
Number of Criminal Investigations
Number of Civil Investigations
Baseline: Protecting the public and the environment from risks posed by violations of environmental requirements is basic to EPA's
mission. To develop a more complete picture of the results of the enforcement and compliance program, EPA has initiated a
number of performance measures designed to capture the results of reducing the amount of time for significant noncompliers to
return to compliance, reducing noncompliance recidivism rates, and improvements in facility process and/or management
practices through behavioral changes. The baseline rates for many of these measures were established in FYOO. These measures
will complement the traditional enforcement measures of inspections and enforcement actions to provide a more complete
picture of environmental results from the enforcement and compliance program.
Compliance Incentives
In 2005 Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of facilities reducing pollutants or improving EMP.
In 2004 Increase opportunities through new targeted sector initiatives for industries to voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations on
a corporate-wide basis.
In 2003 Increased opportunities through new targeted sector initiatives for industries to voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations on
a corporate-wide basis.
FY 2003
Actuals
600
18,880
63
471
344
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
350
15,500
75
400
225
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
300
30
60
18,500
4 billion
10
M pounds
inspections
million pounds
Percentage
percentage
insp&inv.
Dollars
percentage
Percent
Investigations
Investigations
V-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Performance Measures:
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the
reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants; and the
protection of populations or ecosystems.
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in
improvements in env. management practices.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a
result of audit agreements or other actions.
Dollars invested in improving environmental management
practices as a result of audit agreements or other actions.
Facilities voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations with
reduced or no penalty as a result of EPA self-disclosure
policies.
FY 2003
Actuals
848
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
500
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
5
10
.25 million
2 million
percentage
Percentage
Pounds
dollars
Facilities
Baseline: EPA developed its Audit/Self-Policing Policy in 1995 to encourage corporate audits and subsequent correction of self-
discovered violations. That Policy as well as the Small Business Compliance Policy were modified in FYOO. The Agency is
working to expand the use of the Audit Policy through aggressive outreach to specific sectors. In FY01 the performance
measure was modified to reach settlements with 500 facilities to voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations. This same
measure has been carried continued.
Regulated Communities
In 2005 Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental Management
Practices, and reduce pollutants.
In 2004 Increase the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements through their expanded use of compliance
assistance. The Agency will continue to support small business compliance assistance centers and develop compliance
assistance tools such as sector notebooks and compliance guides.
In 2003 Increased the regulated community's compliance with environmental requirements through their expanded use of compliance
assistance. The Agency continued to support small business compliance assistance centers and developed compliance assistance
tools such as sector notebooks and compliance guides.
Performance Measures:
Number of facilities, states, technical assistance providers or
other entities reached through targeted compliance assistance
(core optional)
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from
EPA-sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting that
they improved EMP as a result of their use of the centers or
the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance
assistance from EPA (e.g., training, on-site visits) reporting
that they improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance.
% of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting that they
reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of that
resource.
% of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-
sponsored CA centers and clearinghouse reporting that they
increased their understanding of env. rqmts. as a result of
their use of the resources.
% of regulated entities receiving direct CA from EPA (e.g.,
training, on-site visits) reporting that they increased their
understanding of env. rqmts. as a result of EPA assistance.
% of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA
(e.g., training, on-site visits) reporting that they reduced,
treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.
FY 2003
Actuals
721,000
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
500,000
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
60
50
25
75
65
25
Entities
percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
percentage
percentage
Baseline: EPA provides clear and consistent descriptions of regulatory requirements to assure that the community can understand its
obligations. EPA supports initiatives targeted toward compliance in specific industrial and commercial sectors or with certain
V-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
regulatory requirements. Compliance assistance tools range from plain-language guides, fact sheets, checklists and newsletters.
New distribution methods include the on-line Clearinghouse. In FY03, EPA is planning to reach 475,000 facilities, states, or
technical assistance providers through targeted compliance assistance efforts.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or
eliminated and protection of populations or ecosystems.
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement
actions.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases (including SEPs) requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices.
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices
as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs).
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants and
protection of populations or ecosystems.
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in improvements in environmental management practices.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements or other actions.
Dollars invested in improved environmental management practices as a result of audit agreements or other
actions.
Performance Database: The Integrated Compliance Information System, (ICIS), which tracks EPA civil
enforcement (e.g., judicial and administrative) actions.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through the use of the Case
Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which Agency staff begins preparing after the 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 information generated through the CCDS is
used to track progress for several of the performance measures. The CCDS form consists of 27 specific questions
which, when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case was
concluded; the compliance actions required to be taken by the defendant(s); the costs involved; information on any
Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the amounts and types of any
penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if applicable. The CCDS documents whether the
facility/defendant, through injunctive relief, must: (1) reduce pollutants; and (2) improve management practices to
curtail, eliminate or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future. The Criminal Enforcement Program also
maintains a separate case conclusion data form and system for compiling and analyzing the results of criminal
enforcement prosecution.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in pollution reductions, the staff
estimate the amounts of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented improvement, or an average year once a
long-term solution is in place. There are established procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute, (e.g., Clean
Water Act), the pollutant reductions or eliminations. The procedure first entails the determination of the difference
between the current "out of compliance" concentration of the pollutant(s) and the post enforcement action "in
compliance" concentration. This difference is then converted to mass per time using the flow or quantity information
derived during the case.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references] are in place for both the
CCDS and ICIS entry. There are a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training Booklet [See references] and a Case
Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide [See references], both of which have been distributed throughout Regional and
V-17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Headquarters' (HQ) offices. Separate CCDS Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to
be filled out at the time the CCDS is completed.
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 ICIS information in FY'03. OC's QMP, effective for 5 years, was approved July 29,
2003. OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information
to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance
policies on performance measurement.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by
regional and headquarters' staff for completeness and accuracy.
Data Limitations: The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported on the CCDS are estimates of what will be
achieved if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement. Information on expected outcomes of state
enforcement is not available. The estimates are based on information available at the time a case is settled or an
order is issued. In some instances, this information will be developed and entered after the settlement, during
continued discussions over specific plans for compliance. Because of the time it takes to agree on the compliance
actions, there may be 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 based on information on
the CCDS, the overall amounts of pollutant reductions/eliminations will be prudently underestimated.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a comprehensive guidance package on
the preparation of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet. This guidance, issued to headquarters' and regional managers
and staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM, and was supplemented in FY 2002 [See references]. The
guidance contains work examples to ensure better calculation of the amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated
through concluded enforcement actions. EPA trained each of its ten regional offices during FY 2002. OC's Quality
Management Plan was approved by OEI July 29, 2003, and is effective for five years. [See references]
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). Case
Conclusion Data Sheets: Case Conclusion Data Sheet, Training Booklet, issued November 2000 available:
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning/caseconc.pdf: Quick Guide for Case Conclusion Data
Sheet, issued November 2000. 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, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available
to the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Number of inspections, civil investigations, and criminal investigations
conducted
Performance Databases: Output measure. Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) integrates data from
major enforcement and compliance systems, such as the Permit Compliance System (PCS), Air Facilities Subsystem
(AFS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), and Emergency Response
Notification system (ERNS). The Criminal Docket System (CRIMDOC) is a criminal case management, tracking
and reporting system. Information about criminal cases investigated by the U.S. EPA-Criminal Investigation
Division (CID) is entered into CRIMDOC at case initiation, and investigation and prosecution information is tracked
until case conclusion.
Data Source: EPA's regional and Headquarters' offices. U.S. EPA-CID offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
V-18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: All the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of Information
Management's 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. For CRIMDOC, the system administrator
performs regularly scheduled quality assurance/quality control checks of the CRIMDOC database to validate data
and to evaluate and recommend enhancements to the system.
Data Quality Review: EPA is now using updated monitoring strategies [See references] which clarify reporting
definitions and enhances oversight of state and local compliance monitoring programs. In FY2003, OECA
instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the
GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on
performance measurement.
Data Limitations: For all systems, there are concerns about quality and completeness of data and the ability of
existing systems to meet data needs. Incompatible database structures/designs and differences in data definitions
impede integrated analyses. Additionally, there are incomplete data available on the universe of regulated facilities
because not all are inspected/permitted. In addition, the targets for numbers of inspections, and civil and criminal
investigations are based on the resources redirected to the state and Tribal enforcement grant program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS modernization is underway and the first version is scheduled to be
released in December 2005. An Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF) has been established and will support the
transfer of data from modernized state systems into the current PCS data system while PCS is being modernized.
EPA is addressing the quality of the data in the major systems and each Office within OECA has developed a
Quality Management Plan (data quality objectives, quality assurance project plans, baseline assessments). A new
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports core program needs and consolidates and streamlines
existing systems. Additionally, OECA began implementing its Data Quality Strategy in FY 2002. A new case
management, tracking and reporting system (Case Reporting System) is currently being developed that will replace
CRIMDOC. This new system will be a more user-friendly database with greater tracking, management and reporting
capabilities.
References: Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Strategy, April 25, 2001,
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicv.pdf
AFS: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/air/afssvstem.html.
PCS: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssvs.html.
RCRA info: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm.
For CRIMDOC: CRIM-DOC U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Internal enforcement
confidential database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
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
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of
compliance inspections and evaluations.
Performance Databases: ICIS and manual reporting by regions
Data Sources: EPA regional offices and Office of Regulatory Enforcement (specifically, the Clean Air Act (CAA)-
Mobile Source program).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS)
will be used to analyze results from inspections conducted under some of EPA's major statutes. EPA will analyze
data on communication of problems to industry, compliance assistance delivered by inspectors, and immediate
corrections made by industry according to region, nationally and by industry sector. The inspectors fill out the
V-19
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) for each inspection and that information is reported to ICIS by the
Regions.
QA/QC Procedures: ICIS has been developed per Office of Information Management 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: Regional manual reports are reviewed and checked against the inspection data entered into
other Agency databases (Air Facilities Subsystem (AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online Tracking
Information System (OTIS), Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA)). Information contained in the CCDS
and ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters' staff for completeness and accuracy.
In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of
information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant enforcement
and compliance policies on performance measurement.
Data Limitations: ICIS is not currently the primary database for inspections and as a result the regions have to
enter inspection data into both ICIS and other Agency databases. This can result in redundant, incomplete, or
contradictory data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New & Improved Data or Systems: The new Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) will support core
program needs and consolidate and streamline existing systems. As ICIS becomes more widely used by the regions
and HQ programs some of the problems with data entry and reporting should be resolved. As various older systems
become modernized (e.g., PCS), they will incorporate the ICDS data set as part of the system. This should minimize
data entry and reporting problems.
References: ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented June
2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
Percentage of regulated survey respondents seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance
centers and clearinghouse reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of
their use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated survey respondents seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance
centers and clearinghouse reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of their use
of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated survey respondents seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance
centers and clearinghouse reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental requirements
as a result of their use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Performance Database: In FY2005, EPA Headquarters will manage data on the performance of the Centers and
Clearinghouse respondents using ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) and will no longer operate and
maintain the Reporting Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS).
Data source: Headquarters and EPA's Regional offices will enter information in ICIS upon completion and
delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance including workshops, training, on-site visits and
distribution of compliance assistance tools. ICIS is designed to capture outcome measurement information such as
increased awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and environmental improvements as
a result of the compliance assistance provided.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
V-20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data Quality Reviews: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and Headquarters staff for
completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other
significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to incorporate RCATS into ICIS in FY2004.
References: Reporting Compliance Assistance Data in the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS),
January 9, 2004. RCATS: U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Internal EPA database.
Guidance: RCATs User Guide of March 19, 2001.
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA (e.g., training, on-site visits)
reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of EPA assistance.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA (e.g., training, on-site visits)
reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a result of EPA
assistance.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA (e.g., training, on-site visits) reporting
that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.
Performance Database: EPA Headquarters will manage data on the performance of the Centers and clearinghouse
respondents using ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) in FY05 and will no longer operate and
maintain the Reporting Compliance Assistance Tracking System (RCATS).
Data source: Headquarters and EPA's Regional offices will enter information in ICIS upon completion and delivery
of media and sector-specific compliance assistance including workshops, training, on-site visits and distribution of
compliance assistance tools. ICIS is designed to capture outcome measurement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and environmental improvements as a result of
the compliance assistance provided.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by Regional and Headquarters staff for
completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of information to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other
significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement.
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to incorporate RCATS into ICIS in FY2004.
References: Reporting Compliance Assistance Data in the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS),
January 9, 2004. RCATS: U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Internal EPA database.
Guidance: RCATs User Guide of March 19, 2001.
V-21
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 (42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sections 106, 107, 109, and 122 (42
U.S.C. 9606, 9607, 9609, 9622)
Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 308, 309, and 311 (33 U.S.C. 1318, 1319, 1321)
Safe Drinking Water Act sections 1413, 1414, 1417, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1431, 1432, 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300g-2, 300g-
3, 300g-6, 300h-l, 300h-2, 300h-4, 300i, 3001-1, 300J-4)
Clean Air Act sections 113, 114, and 303 (42 U.S.C. 7413, 7414, 7603)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) sections 11, 16, and 17 and TSCA Titles II and IV (15 U.S.C. 2610, 2615,
2616, 2641-2656, 2681-2692)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act sections 325 and 326 (42 U.S.C. 11045, 11046)
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, section 1018 under TSCA section 11 (42 U.S.C.
4852d, 2610)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act sections 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 (7 U.S.C. 136f, 136g, 136j, 136k,
1361)
Ocean Dumping Act sections 101, 104B, 105, and 107 (33 U.S.C. 1411, 1414B, 1415, 1417)
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
1983 La Paz Agreement on US/Mexico Border Region
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) section 102(f)
Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. section 4321 note)
Environmental Information Authorities
Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7601-7671q)
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 -1387)
Clinger-Cohen Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675)
Computer Security Act
Congressional Review Act
Congressional Review Act
CPRKA of 1986
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 (42 U.S.C. 110001-11050)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 (42 U.S.C. 110001-11050
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act (7 U.S.C. 5404)
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act (ERDDA) of 1981
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12915 - Federal Implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation
Executive Order 12916 - Implementation of the Border Environment Cooperation Commission and the North
American Development Bank
Executive Order 13148, "Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management"
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.)
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S. C. 136-136y)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S. C. 136-136y)
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552)
Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
National Environmental Education Act
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
Paperwork Reduction Act Amendment of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
Plain Language Executive Order
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Privacy Act
V-22
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k)
Safe Drinking Water Act section 1445 (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26)
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Toxic Substance Control Act section 14 (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601-2692)
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
V-23
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public through the adoption of pollution prevention and sustainable practices
that include the design of products and manufacturing processes that generate less pollution, the reduction of
regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Improve Environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
Environmental Program & Management
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY2003
Actuals
$123,311.5
$97,351.3
$1,557.8
$23,874.4
$528.0
544.2
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$137,968.5
$104,608.4
$1,635.3
$31,000.0
$724.8
556.1
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$169,802.0
$113,104.3
$1,769.6
$54000.0
$928.1
562.6
FY2005Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$31,833.5
$8,495.9
$134.3
$23,000.0
$203.3
6.5
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal
Performance Fund
Small Business Ombudsman
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
NEPA Implementation
Pollution Prevention Program
Regulatory /Economic-Management and
Analysis
Environmental Education
Congressionally Mandated Projects
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Regulatory Innovation
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
$3,048.6
$18,514.0
$5,360.4
$11,204.2
$15,450.3
$21,261.8
$5,281.0
$1,950.5
$3,325.9
$7,357.9
$30,556.9
$123,311.5
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$3,764.9
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
$12,315.4
$17,098.7
$18,468.6
$0.0
$0.0
$4,134.2
$19,390.5
$31,796.2
$137,968.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$23,000.0
$3,838.7
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
$12,654.2
$22,496.2
$18,551.8
$0.0
$0.0
$4,193.8
$19,349.5
$34,717.8
$169,802.0
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$23,000.0
$73.8
$0.0
$0.0
$338.8
$5,397.5
$83.2
$0.0
$0.0
$59.6
($41.0)
$2,921.6
$31,833.5
V-24
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
GOAL: COMPLIANCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION
PREVENTION AND INNOVATION
Reduction of Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2005 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental
stewardship practices.
In 2004 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and municipal solid wastes.
In 2003 FY 2003 data will be available in 2005 to verity the quantity of toxic release inventory (TRI)
pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in 2003, (normalized for
changes in industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or two percent, from 2002.
Performance Measures:
Reduction of TRI non-recycled waste
(normalized)
Alternative feed stocks, processes, or safer
products identified through Green Chemistry
Challenge Award
Number of participants in Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment
Quantity of hazardous chemicals/solvents
eliminated through the Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program
For eco-friendly detergents, track the number of
laundry detergent formulations developed.
Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at Federal
Facilities.
Percent reduction in both Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) chemical releases to the
environment from the business sector per unit of
production ("Clean Index")
Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in
production-related wastes generated by the
business sector per unit of production ("Green
Index").
Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.
Millions of dollars saved through reductions in
pollution.
Annual cumulative quantity of water conserved
Billions of BTUs of energy conserved.
FY 2003
Actuals
Data lag
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
200 Million
210
2000
150 million
36
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
32%
20%
10%
34 Billion
134 Million
1.5 billion
143 Billion
Ibs
Prod/proc
(Cum)
Participants
Ibs
formulations
Releases
(Cum)
Releases
(Cum)
Waste (Cum)
Pounds
(Cum)
Dollars
(Cum)
Gallons
(Cum)
BTU (Cum)
V-25
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Baseline: The baseline for the TRI non-recycled wastes measure is the amount of non-recycled wastes in 2001
reported FY2003. The baseline for eco-friendly detergents is 0 formulations in 1997. The baseline for
the alternative feed stocks / processes measure is zero in 2000. The baseline for the quantity of
hazardous chemicals / solvents measures is zero pounds in the year 2000. The baseline for the
hospitals measure is zero in FY2001. The baseline reference point for reductions of pollution and
conservation of BTUs and water will be zero for 2003. The baseline for money saved will be 2003.
The baseline for reduction in CO2 will be zero for 1996. The baseline for the Clean and Green Index
would be 2001 levels. The baseline for chemical releases is 2001 level. The baseline for chemical
production related wastes is 2001 level. Note: Several output measures were changed to internal-only
reporting status in 2005. Annual Performance measures under development for EPA's
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program for the FY2006 Annual Performance Plan.
Innovation Activities
In 2005 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction of 600 million gallons in water
use; 2.5 million MMBTUs in energy use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases; and 10,000
tons in water discharges, compared with 2001 results.
Performance Measures:
Specific annual reductions in five media/resource
areas: water use, energy use, solid waste, air
releases, and water discharges.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
5
media
reductions
Baseline: The baseline year is 2001. The FY 2005 specific reductions planned are that Performance Track
members collectively will achieve annual reductions, compared with 2001, of 600M gallons of
water used; 2.5M MMBTUs of energy used; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases;
and 10,000 tons of water discharges.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
Percent reduction in both Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical releases to the environment from the
business sector per unit of production ("Clean Index").
Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related wastes generated by the business sector per unit of
production ("Green Index").
Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at Federal Facilities.
Performance Database: TRIM: Toxics Release Inventory Modernization, formerly TRIS (Toxics Release
Inventory System) provides facility/chemical-specific data quantifying the amount of TRI-listed chemicals entering
wastes associated with production process in each year. The total amount of each chemical in production-related
wastes can be broken out by the methods employed in managing such wastes, including recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, and disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes that are not recycled are tracked for this performance
measure.
Data Source: Regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-specific release, waste and recycling data to
EPA. For example, in calendar year 1999, 22,639 facilities filed 84,068 TRI reports.
V-26
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: TRI data are collected as required by sections 313 of EPCRA and 6607
of Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (40 CFR ' 372; www.epa.gov/tri/). Only certain facilities in specific Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are required to report annually the quantities of over 650 listed toxic chemicals
and chemical categories released to each environmental medium and otherwise managed as waste (40 CFR ' 372;
www.epa.gov/tri/). Regulation requires covered facilities to use monitoring, mass balance, emission factors and/or
engineering calculations approaches to estimate releases and recycling volumes. For purposes of the Clean and
Green Index performance measures, data controls are employed to facilitate cross-year comparisons: a subset of
chemicals and sectors are assessed that are consistently reported in all years; data are normalized to control for
changes in production using published U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) gross product indices (chain-type
quantity index for the manufacturing sector). [Please note, the federal facility measure data are not normalized to
control for changes in production].
QA/QC Procedures: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) FORM R
reporting tools, which contain automated error checking mechanisms. Upon receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA
conducts automated edits, error checks, data scrubs, corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent
processing to verify that the information provided by the facilities is correctly entered in TRIM. The Agency does
not control the quality of the data submitted by the regulated community. EPA does, however, work with the
regulated community to improve the quality of their estimates.
Data Quality Review: The quality of the data contained in the TRI chemical reports is dependent upon the quality
of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its releases and other waste management quantities. Use of TRI
Form R by submitters and EPA's performance data reviews combine to help assure data quality. The GAO Report,
Environmental Protection: EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention
(GAO - 01 - 283), recommends that EPA strengthen the rule on reporting of source reduction activities. Although
EPA agrees that source reduction data are valuable, the Agency has not finalized regulations to improve reporting of
source reduction activities by TRI-regulated facilities.
Data Limitations: Use of the data should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency does not have direct
assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting processes. TRI release data are reported by
facilities on a good faith, best-estimate basis. EPA does not have the resources to conduct on-site validation of each
facility's reporting data, though on-site investigations do occur each year at a subset of reporting facilities.
Error Estimate: From the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting issues such as
incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of release and other waste management
quantities (EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/dataquality reports/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.')
For example, certain facilities incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold instead of an 'otherwise use'
(10,000 Ib) threshold for certain non-persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, so they did not have to
report if their releases were below 25,000 Ibs. Also, for example, some facilities incorrectly reported fugitive
releases instead of stack releases of certain toxic chemicals.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA plans to develop regulations for improving reporting of source reduction
activities by TRI reporting facilities.
References: www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations provided above. (EPA-745-F-93-001;EPA-745-R-98-
012;http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data quality reports/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
• Reduction in overall pounds of pollution
• Billions of BTUs of energy conserved
• Billions of gallons of water saved
• Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution
• Reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a baseline year of 1996. (Green Chemistry only)
V-27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs include Green Chemistry, Design for the Environment, Green
Engineering, and other Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs. Each of these programs operate under the principles of
the Pollution Prevention Act and work with others to reduce waste at the source, before it is generated. These
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 is developing an electronic database ("metrics" database) which will allow organized
storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on alternative feedstocks, processes, and safer
chemicals. The database is being designed to store and retrieve, in a systematic fashion, information on the
environmental benefits and, where available, economic benefits that these alternative green chemistry technologies
offer. The database is also being designed to track the quantity of hazardous chemicals and solvents eliminated
through implementation of these alternative technologies.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE does not have a performance database. Instead, DfE is planning to develop
an evaluation spreadsheet for its main project approaches (i.e., Life Cycle Assessment, Formulator, Best Practices,
Cleaner Technology Substitutes Assessment, and Supply Chain). Spreadsheet content will vary by approach, and
generally will include measures comparing baseline technologies or products to "cleaner" ones, as well as
information on partner adoption and/or market share of cleaner alternatives; for example, the DfE formulator
approach tracks chemical improvements (such as pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and
conversely pounds of safer ingredients) and resource savings. This information will allow benefit calculations.
Green Engineering (GE): Similar to the Green Chemistry Program, EPA will be developing an electronic database
to keep track of environmental benefits of GE projects including, gallons of water, British Thermal Units (BTUs)
and dollars saved and pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions eliminated.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: EPA is working with state and local P2 programs to develop a national
database that will provide data on environmental outcomes (the core P2 metrics included in the above performance
measure). Many EPA Regional offices', state and local P2 programs are currently collecting data on P2 program
activities, outputs, and outcomes. EPA will be working with these programs to reach consensus on standardized
metrics, including definitions, and to establish an ongoing system to gather data on these metrics. The system will
include new reporting requirements in EPA P2 grants and the cooperation of key stakeholder groups, such as the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (which produced a January 2003 report providing baseline data on the
above metrics for the period 1990-2000). Data collected from the program will be placed in a new national database,
facilitating convenient data storage and retrieval.
Data Source:
Green Chemistry (GC): Industry and academia submit nominations annually to OPPT in response to the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in the
nomination packages. The metrics database pulls this benefit information from the nominations.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the approach and the
partner industry. For example, in DfE's formulation improvement partnerships, partners provide proprietary
information on both their original formulation and their environmentally improved one. Partners sign a
memorandum of understanding with EPA/DfE which includes information on how the company uses cleaner
chemistry to formulate a product, the environmental and health benefits of the product, and customer and sales
information. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g., cleaner technology
substitutes assessments, life-cycle assessments) and market/sales/adoption information from associations.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will come from profiles of recognized projects by technical journals or
organizations, such as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, or directly reported by project leaders on
industry projects or joint academia-industry projects.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: State and local P2 programs will submit data as described above.
V-28
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:
Green Chemistry (GC): This is an output measure tracked directly through OPPT record-keeping systems. No
models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Methods and assumptions vary by approach and partner industry. Each DfE
partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and industrial processes. For most DfE approaches,
the general method is to 1) develop a model for a "typical" or "average" facility, 2) assess the differences between
traditional and alternative technologies on metrics such as toxics use, resource consumption, cost, and performance,
3) track market share of alternative technologies over time, and 4) multiply the increase in use of alternative, cleaner
technologies by the environmental, cost, and performance differences identified in Step 2. Through this quantitative
process, the Agency is able to calculate the benefits generated by the cleaner technology: e.g. how much toxics use
reduction is occurring, how much less resources are consumed? Similarly, for DfE's formulation improvement
approach, the method is to analyze environmental (e.g., toxics use, resource consumption) and cost differences
between the old and improved formulations. This proprietary information is provided by our partners and sales
information. For each approach, we will develop a spreadsheet that includes the methods and assumptions.
Green Engineering (GE): The information will be tracked directly through EPA record keeping systems. No
models or statistical extrapolations are expected to be used.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as described above. No
models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the Information Quality
Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualitvguidelines/index.html and under the OPPT Quality
Management Plan (QMP). OPPT Quality Management Plan is for internal use only.
Green Chemistry: Data undergo a technical screening review by OPPT before being uploaded to the database to
determine if they adequately support the environmental benefits described in the application. Subsequent to OPPT
screening, data are reviewed by an external independent panel of technical experts from academia, industry,
government, and 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
Design for the Environment (DfE): Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being uploaded to the
spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the environmental benefits described.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to ensure it meets the EPA Quality Guidelines in terms of
transparency, reasonableness and accuracy.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and other program
participants (e.g., National Pollution Prevention Roundtable) before being placed in the database. Additional
QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.
Data Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualitvguidelines/index.html and under the
OPPT Quality Management Plan (QMP).
Green Chemistry (GC): Review of industry and academic data as documented in U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Green Chemistry Program Files available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE): Not applicable.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The new metrics and data system were based, in part, on recommendations in
the February 2001 GAO report, "EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution
Prevention" (GAO-01-283). They also incorporate work by such organizations as the Northeast Waste Management
V-29
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Officials Association, Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable.
Data Limitations:
Green Chemistry (GC): Occasionally data are limited for a given technology due to confidential business
information (the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program does not process CBI). It also is
occasionally unclear what the percentage market penetration of implemented alternative green chemistry technology
(potential benefits vs. realized benefits) is. In these cases, the database is so noted.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Occasionally data are limited for a given technology due to confidential business
information.
Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly quantified. In
those instances, the data will be excluded.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and local P2 programs
to gather data. These programs vary in attention to data collection from sources within their jurisdictions, data
verification and other QA/QC procedures. Also, despite plans described above to move toward consistent metrics
and definitions, some differences exist
Error Estimate:
Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly quantified. In
those instances, the data will be excluded.
Not applicable for other programs contributing data to this measure.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Green Chemistry (GC), Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE): The American Chemistry
Council (ACC) has initiated an industry serf-monitoring program called Responsible Care. Beginning in 2003,
member companies will collect and report on a variety of information. Measures tentatively include Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) releases; tons of CO2 equivalent per pound of production; total BTUs consumed per pound of
production; systems for assessing or, reassessing potential environmental, health, and safety risks; percentage of
products re-evaluated; percentage of commitments for chemical evaluation programs; documentation of process for
characterizing and managing product risks; and documentation of communication of risk characterization results.
Many of these measures are similar to the EPA program targets identified under Goal 5, Objective 2. These reports
may be an invaluable source of industry baseline information. It is important that the EPA programs identified
under Goal 5 evaluate the utility of the reports generated under the ACC's Responsible Care Program in support of
the EPA's programs as well as the goals of Responsible Care. (CAPRM II, Chemical and Pesticide Results
Measures, March 2003 pp. 313)
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs and Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E): See discussion in first item.
References:
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures II: http://www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.html
Green Chemistry (GC): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
Green Engineering (GE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Specific annual reductions in five media/resource areas: water use, energy
use, solid waste, air releases, and water discharges.
Performance Databases: Both the Performance Track On-Line (a Domino database) and the Performance Track
Members Database (a Microsoft Access database) store information provided to EPA from members' applications
and annual performance reports. Both databases contain the same information; in fact, data from PTrack On-Line is
transferred electronically to the PTrack Members Database, which is more useful for analysis. Performance Track
members select a set of environmental indicators on which to report performance over a three-year period of
participation. The externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may not be included in any particular
V-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
facility's set of indicators. Performance Track aggregates and reports only that information that a facility voluntarily
reports to the Agency. A facility may make progress towards one of the above indicators, but if it is not among its
set of "commitments", then Performance Track's data will not reflect the changes occurring at the facility.
Similarly, if a facility's performance declines in any of the above areas and the indicator is not included among its
set of commitments, that decline will not be reflected in the above results.
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2005 corresponds most closely with members' calendar
year of 2005. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program by April 1, 2006. The data will then be
reviewed, aggregated, and available for external reporting in August 2006. (Calendar year 2004 data will become
available in August of 2005.)
Data Source: All data are self-reported and self-certified by member facilities.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications and annual performance
reports are compiled and aggregated across those members that choose to report on the given indicator. The data
reflect the performance results at the facility; any improvements or declines in performance are due to activities and
conditions at the specific facility. The data should not be interpreted to represent the direct results of participating in
the Performance Track program. Additionally, while Performance Track asks that facilities report results of an
indicator for the facility as a whole, in some cases facilities report results for specific sections of a facility. This is
not always clear in the reports submitted to the program. For example, Member A commits to reducing its VOC
emissions from 1000 tons to 500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year 1, it reports a reduction of VOCs from 1000
tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggregates this reduction of 200 tons with results from other facilities. But
unbeknownst to Performance Track, the facility made a commitment to reduce its VOCs from Production Line A
and is only reporting on its results from that production line. The facility is not intentionally hiding information
from EPA, but it mistakenly thought that its commitment could focus on environmental management activities at
Production Line A rather than across the entire facility. Unfortunately, due to increased production and a couple of
mishaps by a sloppy technician, VOC emissions at Production Line B increased by 500 tons in Year 1. Thus, the
facility's VOC emissions actually INCREASED by 300 tons in Year 1. Performance Track's statement to the public
that the facility reduced its emissions by 200 tons is therefore misleading.
The data can be used to make year-to-year comparisons, but reviewers and analysts should bear in mind that
Performance Track membership is constantly in flux. Although members should retain the same set of indicators for
their three-year participation period, as new members join the program and others leave, the baseline constantly
changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of reported data will
represent two years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the baseline will be two years prior rather than one year.
QA/QC Procedures: Data submitted with applications and annual performance reports to the program are
reviewed for completeness and adherence to program formatting requirements. In cases where it appears possible
that data is miscalculated or misreported, EPA or contractor staff follows up with the facility. If the accuracy of data
remains under question or if a facility has provided incomplete or non-standard data, the database is coded to ensure
that the data is excluded from aggregated and externally reported results.
Additionally, Performance Track staff visit up to 20% of Performance Track member facilities each year. During
those visits, facilities are asked about their data collection systems and about the sources of the data reported to the
program.
Performance Track contractors conduct a quality review of data entered manually into the database. Performance
Track staff conduct periodic checks of the entered data.
As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not audited in a formal way.
However, a prerequisite of Performance Track membership is an environmental management system (EMS) at the
facility, a key element of which is a system of measurement and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities
have had independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the facilities' data.
A Quality Management Plan is under development.
V-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection, misreporting,
inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility. Where facilities submit data outside of
the Performance Track On-Line system, Performance Track staff or contractors must enter data manually into the
database. Manually entered data is sometimes typed incorrectly.
It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or round data. Errors are also
made in converting units and in calculations. In general, however, EPA is confident that the externally reported
results are a fair representation of members' performance.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: As of spring 2004, all Performance Track applications and annual
performance reports will be submitted electronically (i.e., through the Performance Track On-Line system), thus
avoiding the new for manual data entry. Additionally, the program is implementing a new requirement that all
members gain third-party assessments of their EMS.
References: Members' applications and annual performance reports can be found on the Performance Track
website at http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/particip/alphabet.htm.
Performance Track On-Line and the Performance Track Members Database are not generally accessible.
Performance Track staff can grant access to and review of the databases by request.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act (ASTCA)
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 309 (42 U.S.C. 7609)
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387)
Economy Act of 1932
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050)
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 18, 24, and 25 (7 U.S.C. 136a,
136a-l, 136c, 136d, 136i, 136p, 136v, and 136w)
National Environmental Policy Act
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Hazardous Waste Amendments of 1984
Toxic Substances Control Act
V-32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Build Tribal Capacity
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in
building their capacity to implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and
environments, and implement programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Build Tribal Capacity
Environmental Program & Management
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Building and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$70,556.6
$13,882.1
$56,212.5
$87.7
$374.3
99.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$78,759.3
$15,687.4
$62,500.0
$73.6
$498.3
99.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$78,931.1
$15,849.2
$62,500.0
$79.3
$502.6
98.4
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$171.8
$161.8
$0.0
$5.7
$4.3
-1.1
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
Tribal - Capacity Building
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY 2003
Actuals
$56,212.5
$9,555.8
$4,788.3
$70,556.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$62,500.0
$10,494.1
$5,765.2
$78,759.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$62,500.0
$10,641.7
$5,789.4
$78,931.1
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
$0.0
$147.6
$24.1
$171.7
V-33
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental Priori
In 2005 Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement
environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
In 2004 Percent of Tribes will have an environmental presence (e.g., one or more persons to assist in building Tribal capacity to develop
and implement environmental programs.
Performance Measures:
Percent of Tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs
(cumulative).
Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring (cumulative).
Percent of Tribes with EPA-approved multimedia workplans
(cumulative).
Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program
capacity of federally recognized tribes that have access to an
environmental presence.
Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data systems to
facilitate the use of EPA Tribal Enterprise Architecture
information in setting environmental priorities and informing
policy decisions.
Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major
water, land, and air programs as determined through the
availability of information in the EPA Tribal Enterprise
Architecture.
Increase implementation of environmental programs in
Indian country by program delegations, approvals, or
primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities
by EPA.
Increase the percent of tribes with environmental monitoring
and assessment activities under EPA-approved quality
assurance procedures.
Increase the percent of tribes w/ multimedia programs
reflecting traditional use of natural resources.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
25%
20%
18%
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
90
5
5
159
5
5
Tribes
Tribes
Tribes
% Tribes
Systems
% Data Gap
Programs
% Tribes
% Tribes
Baseline:
There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental
assessments of their lands will be conducted.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure:
Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring that 90 percent of federally
recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence.
Develop or integrate 15 (cumulative) EPA and interagency software applications to facilitate the use of EPA
Tribal Enterprise Architecture information in setting environmental priorities and informing policy
decisions.
Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major water, land, and air programs as determined
through the availability of information in the EPA Tribal Enterprise Architecture.
Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian Country as determined by program
delegations, or primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA.
V-34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Increase the percent of tribes with environmental monitoring and assessment activities under EPA-approved
quality assurance procedures.
Increase the percent of tribes with multimedia programs reflecting traditional use of natural resources as
determined by use of Performance Partnership Grants, EPA/Tribal Environmental Agreements, and other
innovative EPA agreements that reflect holistic program integration.
Performance Database: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has been in the forefront of
working with multiple agencies on a federal interagency Tribal Enterprise Architecture under the auspices of OMB
Circular A-16 on federal data coordination. The Tribal Enterprise Architecture includes access to a wide variety of
data from several agencies and numerous sources within the agencies. It also includes several AIEO-developed
applications to analyze environmental performance in Indian Country.
Environmental presence on tribal land is the creation of tribal government infrastructure (FTE and support) to
develop program capacity, assess environmental conditions, establish environmental priorities, implement and
manage programs that result in environmental improvements. The GAP Grant Tracking System, which is a
component of the Tribal Enterprise Architecture, can measure environmental presence, based on tribally reported
information. Environmental presence is measured by staffing levels reported; also information is collected on
general capacity building, media program, and cross-media activities.
The Tribal Information Management System (TIMS), which is also part of the Tribal Enterprise
Architecture, is a web-based application (http:/oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov) used to access baseline environmental
information on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Public access to this information via the web cannot be provided
until EPA completes its consultation with the tribes. TIMS contains information about the environmental condition
of tribal lands, the nature and status of regulated facilities there, as well as the nature and extent of tribal
environmental management program activities. TIMS is not a static system. It is a real-time system that extracts
information from EPA and external data systems as they are maintained and updated by various federal, non-federal,
and tribal partners. TIMS is also a vehicle for tribes, federal agencies and non-federal agencies, to develop
partnerships, improve communication, and to establish tribal environmental priorities in a coordinated, multimedia,
and interagency way.
TIMS generates tribal profiles, which are standardized overviews of environmental conditions and include
tribally supplied background (non-environmental) information. The overviews are multi-media and allow further
access to specific, detailed, publicly available information. These profiles, in conjunction with other Tribal
Enterprise Architecture information: (1) allow EPA to accurately assess the establishment of an environmental
presence in Indian Country, and to report results annually as progress toward performance goals; (2) allow EPA to
measure trends and changes in environmental conditions and program results over time; and, (3) provide
information for tribes and agencies to establish environmental priorities in a coordinated fashion.
Data Sources: Current TIMS data sources are existing federal databases, both from EPA and other agencies,
supplemented by data sources collected from the EPA regions as appropriate. All data sources are identified and
referenced in the TIMS application. In FY 2004 we expect to formalize interagency data standards and protocols,
working with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) formed as a result of OMB Circular A-16, to ensure
information is collected and reported consistently among the federal agencies. In 2005, AIEO will be working as
the co-lead of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (with DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs) on the FGDC tribal
data workgroup.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The methodology for assessments of environmental conditions in Indian
Country will be standard statistical methods of analysis of variance. Chi Square and Fisher linear model techniques
will be used to evaluate the statistical significance of comparisons of tribal conditions, with regard to specific
environmental parameters, compared to the nation as a whole. The data used to develop these statistical inferences
are in general non-aggregated point measurements that have been geographically indexed. Sample sizes are
generally large enough (often in the hundreds of thousands when evaluating parameters such as regulated facilities)
to provide the necessary degrees of freedom to make statistical inferences in spite of the large variance in sizes of
reservations in Indian Country. The data are suitable for year-to-year performance comparisons, and also for trend
analysis. Forecasting technologies have not yet been tested on the data.
V-35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
QA/QC Procedures: All the data used in the baseline project have quality assurance and metadata documentation
prepared by the originating agency. These will all be described in a Quality Management document: "Manual to
TIMS: Tribal Information Management System." AIEO will develop data and metadata standards through its work
on the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Data Quality Reviews: Quality of the external databases will be described but not ranked. Data correction and
improvement is an ongoing part of the baseline assessment project. Tribes will have the opportunity to review their
Tribal Profiles. Mechanisms for adjusting data will be supplied. Errors in the tribal profile are subject to errors in
the underlying data. A special site http://db-server.tetratech-ffx.com/baseline/datacenter which will be used to: 1)
allow direct editing and correction of text of the profiles, 2) submit geographic corrections to maps and boundary
files, or submit files of different kinds of political units for analysis, and 3) submit corrections to quantitative data
points, and 4) display the bibliography used to compile the TIMS information system.
Data Limitations: The largest part of the data used by the Tribal Enterprise Architecture has not been coded to
particular tribes by the recording agency. AIEO uses new geographic data mining technologies to extract records
based on the geographical coordinates of the data points. For example, if a regulated facility has latitude and
longitude coordinates that place it in the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation, then it is assigned to the
Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes of the Wind River Reservation. This technique is extremely powerful, because it
"tribally enables" large numbers of information systems which were previously incapable of identifying tribes. This
will be applied to all the EPA databases. There are limitations, however. When database records are not
geographically identified with latitude and longitude, the technique does not work and the record is lost to the
system. Likewise, the accuracy of the method depends on the accuracy of the reservation boundary files. EPA
continues to request up-to-date and accurate coverage of reservation boundaries and land status designations from
other agencies.
Error Estimate: Analysis of variation of the various coverage of reservation boundaries that are available to EPA
indicates deviations of up to 5%. The other source of error comes from records that are not sufficiently described
geographically, to be assigned to specific tribes. For some agencies, such as USGS, the geographic record is
complete, so there is no error from these sources. It is estimated that 20% of the regulated facilities in EPA
regulatory databases are not geographically described, and thus will not be recognized by the AIEO methodology.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The technologies used by the Tribal Enterprise Architecture are all new and
state-of-the-art. Everything is delivered on the Internet, with security, and no need for any special software or data
disk on the desktop. The geographic interface is an ESRI product called ARC/IMS, which is a web-based
application, with a fully functional GIS system that is fully scalable. In FY 2003, the entire system will be rendered
in 3D. The Tribal Enterprise Architecture uses XML protocols to attach to and display information seamlessly and
in real-time from cooperating agency data systems without ever having to download the data to an intermediate
server.
References:
Manual to TIMS: Tribal Information Management System (draft).
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/bia/tribal em.html
https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TIMS
http ://db-server.tetratech-ffx. comn/baseline/datacenter
https://oasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS
http ://gap-demo. tetratech-ffx. com
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Act of 1992 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4368b)
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP)
V-36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
OBJECTIVE: Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies and decisions
on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
Resource Summary
(Dollars in Thousands)
Enhance Science and Research
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Science & Technology
Buildings and Facilities
Inspector General
Total Workyears
FY 2003
Actuals
$72,209.6
$12,336.5
$5,160.1
$53,066.4
$1,337.1
$309.3
293.5
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$77,181.8
$11,039.9
$8,070.5
$56,273.7
$1,422.4
$375.3
304.4
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$70,128.7
$10,936.2
$6,879.5
$50,468.8
$1,506.3
$337.9
299.0
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($7,053.1)
($103.7)
($1,191.0)
($5,804.9)
$83.9
($37.4)
-5.3
Program Project
(Dollars in Thousands)
Research: Pollution Prevention
Forensics Support
Research: Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV)
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Administrative Projects
TOTAL
FY2003
Actuals
$31,504.1
$14,845.9
$2,619.0
$9,040.0
$14,200.6
$72,209.6
FY2004
Pres. Bud.
$38,998.6
$18,258.4
$4,011.8
$0.0
$15,913.0
$77,181.8
FY2005
Pres. Bud.
$34,060.5
$16,910.8
$2,996.8
$0.0
$16,160.6
$70,128.7
FY 2005 Req. v.
FY 2004 Pres Bud
($4,938.1)
($1,347.6)
($1,015.0)
$0.0
$247.6
($7,053.1)
V-37
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Research
Pollution Prevention Research
Long-term Outcome Measure
Annual Measure
Efficiency Measure
Measure under development.
Measure under development.
Measure under development.
New Technologies
In 2005 Complete thirty verifications and four testing protocols for a program cumulative total of 280 verifications and 88 testing
protocols for new environmental technologies so that, by 2009, appropriate and credible performance information about new,
commercial-ready environmental technology is available that influences users to purchase effective environmental technology in
the US and abroad.
In 2004 Verify 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies so that States, technology purchasers, and the public will have
highly credible data and performance analyses on which to make technology selection decisions.
In 2003 Developed 10 testing protocols and completed 40 technology verifications for a cumulative Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program total of 230 to aid industry, states, and consumers in choosing effective technologies to protect the
public and environment from high risk pollutants.
Performance Measures:
Verify and provide information to States, technology
purchasers, and the public on 40 air, water, pollution
prevention and monitoring technologies for an ETV
programmatic total of 230 verifications.
Complete an additional 10 stakeholder approved and peer-
reviewed test protocols in all environmental technology
categories under ETV, and provide them to international
testing organizations.
Through the ETV program, verify the performance of 35
commercial-ready environmental technologies.
Verifications completed
Testing protocols completed
FY 2003
Actuals
40
10
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
35
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
15
2
verifications
protocols
verifications
verifications
protocols
Baseline: Actual environmental risk reduction is directly related to performance and effectiveness of environmental technologies
purchased and used. Private sector technology developers produce almost all the new technologies purchased in the U.S. and
around the world. Purchasers and permitters of environmental technologies need an independent, objective, high quality source
of performance information in order to make more informed decisions; and vendors with innovative, improved, faster and
cheaper environmental technologies need a reliable source of independent evaluation to be able to penetrate the environmental
technology market. Through FY 2004, EPA's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program will have verified
approximately a programmatic total of 265 technologies, as well as making data on their performance available for public use,
and will have developed 86 protocols. In FY 2005, the ETV Program will complete 15 additional verifications and two testing
protocols for a cumulative total of 280 verifications and 88 testing protocols since ETV begin in 1995. Beginning in FY 2005,
regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and
successful performance to date, in accordance with OMB's Investment Criteria for Research and Development. These
evaluations will include an examination of a program's design to determine the appropriateness of a program's short-,
intermediate-, and long-term goals and its strategy for attaining these. Reviewers will also qualitatively determine whether EPA
has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations and results from these
reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their progress under the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Verifications completed
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
V-38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Testing protocols completed
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
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: N/A
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act sections 106, 107, 109, and 122 (42
U.S.C. 9606, 9607, 9609, 9622)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act sections 325 and 326 (42 U.S.C. 11045, 11046)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Technology Transfer Act
Ocean Dumping Act sections 101, 104B, 105, and 107 (33 U.S.C. 1411, 1414B, 1415, 1417)
Pollution Prevention Act
Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. section 4321 note)
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, section 1018 under TSCA section 11 (42 U.S.C.
4852d, 2610)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992K)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Small Business Innovation and Development Act
Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
V-39
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
ENABLING/SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Enabling/Support programs
(Dollars in Thousands)
Office of Air and Radiation
Program Project
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$600.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$600.0
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Program Project
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$600.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$600.0
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program Project
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
IT / Data Management
FY 2003
Actuals
$1,807.3
$22,244.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$2,253.3
$25,641.1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,467.2
$26,261.9
Office of Administration and Resources Management
Program Project
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
FY 2003
Actuals
$39,968.1
$385,000.8
$40,740.9
$46,491.7
$17,792.2
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$19,288.0
$418,840.5
$41,846.3
$49,191.0
$20,313.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$19,309.3
$439,297.8
$43,659.5
$48,553.1
$23,262.1
ESP-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Energy Consumption Reduction
In 2005 By 2005, EPA will achieve a 20% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories which is in line to meet the
2005 requirement of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base. This includes Green Power purchases.
In 2004 By 2004, EPA will achieve a 16% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories which is in line to meet the
2005 requirement of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base. This includes Green Power purchases.
In 2003 The Agency achieved 15.3% energy consumption reduction from 1990 in its 21 laboratories.
Performance Measures:
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption
(from 1990).
FY 2003
Actuals
15.3
FY 2004
Pres.
Bud.
16
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
20
Percent
Baseline: In FY 2000, energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 320,000 BTUs per square foot.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance Measure: Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories
from the 1990 base.
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor receives energy bills regularly - either monthly or quarterly -
from the utility companies. This information is compiled in the contractor's database and provided to the Agency
quarterly and annually. The contractor is responsible for validating the data.
Data Source: Energy bills from the utility companies, as compiled by the Agency's contractor.
QA/QC Procedures: Agency staff/contractor review utility bills from laboratories.
Data Quality Review: EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch.
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (OHROS) will assist Program Offices in
determining their demand for future mission-critical skills and competencies, identifying their gaps, and developing
a methodology for filling the gaps. This information will be entered by the Program Offices into the Agency's
Workforce Planning module in PeoplePlus, the Agency's integrated human resources/time&labor/payroll system.
QA/QC Procedures: The information will be verified through collaboration with Program Managers, e.g., through
focus groups.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: Some of the data, like a determination of current competencies and skills, will be generated by
employees themselves.
New/Improved Data or Systems: PeoplePlus is the Agency's new integrated system set to go live in early October
2003.
References: http://intranet.epa.gov/institute/wds/planning.htm
ESP-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Office of Environmental Information
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Exchange Network
Information Security
IT / Data Management
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
$21,282.4
$21,516.2
$86,198.4
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$3,820.3
$33,295.3
$13,337.4
$112,124.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$3,820.3
$27,762.2
$4,697.2
$130,019.6
In FY 2005, EPA proposes increased focus on the following five critical areas:
• Address critical technology gaps affecting EPA's ability to deliver information access consistently where
interfacing with external partners is an essential dimension of operations.
• Deliver a high speed network and information technology (IT) infrastructure that has the capacity to handle
the massive amounts of data needed to perform environmental analyses, support environmental decision
making, and share environmental data with partners inside and outside EPA.
• Improve management and reduce the cost of IT investments to modernize Agency technology and
information infrastructure through adoption of sound investment strategies and architecture planning,
consistent with the President's Management Agenda (PMA) and e-Gov concepts1.
• Implement cyber-security for environmental information to assess and mitigate highest priority risks,
address critical homeland security requirements, and ensure reliable, secure information access for all EPA
personnel, emergency responders (EPA and local), and all external partners.
• Enhance EPA's Web site management procedures and processes to keep pace with technological advances
as well as homeland defense concerns on the disclosure of certain information, and the public's demand for
access to environmental information.
EPA's Chief Information Officer (CIO) will continue to pursue a strategy which supports a strong Agency
architecture program and investment management process as outlined by the Federal CIO Council and required by
the Clinger-Cohen Act. Our approach to information will allow EPA to collect and share data while making key
information, technology, and funding decisions at an enterprise-wide level and strengthening the efficiency and
effectiveness of the governance structure and operations.
The vast majority of environmental data are collected by states and tribes, not directly by EPA. Through a
five-year partnership effort, EPA is working with states and tribes to develop an internet-based Environmental
Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). The Exchange Network is the means by which EPA and our
partners are migrating from antiquated, inaccessible, "stove pipe" data systems (or sometimes even paper systems)
to digital, high quality, integrated environmental information systems. These new systems, with their "network
portals" allow multiple types of data to be exchanged over the internet between EPA, states, tribes, the regulated
community, and the public. The Exchange Network was conceived and designed by EPA and the states to enhance
environmental decision making at the Federal, state, and local level. It increases the availability of data, ensures
better data quality and accuracy, maintains security of sensitive data, prevents avoidance of redundant data, and
reduces the burden on those who provide and those who access data. It is an effort which supports both public
servants and private citizens' environmental choices.
1 Office of Management and Budget. "The President's Management Agenda." Available (or accessible) only though
the Internet: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf
ESP-:
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In addition to the value inter-governmental partnerships and environmental information exchange provide
to environmental policy making, EPA and others also benefit from the economies of scale and efficiencies which
improve the quality of services and drive down the cost of basic government functions. The Agency's enterprise-
wide investment and planning will result in improved services beyond the institutional boundaries of EPA. The
PMA's e-Gov efforts seek to simplify processes and unify operations to better serve citizens' needs. EPA will
continue its efforts to implement this vision, and eliminate redundancies and overlap. Specific activities include
small business compliance, payroll, geospatial information, online rulemaking, and other enterprise-wide resource
functions.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Information Exchange Network
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the
Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the
Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Continued to improve data access to ensure that decision makers have access to the environmental data that EPA collects and
manages to make sound environmental decisions while minimizing the reporting burden on data providers.
Performance Measures:
States using the Central Data Exchange (CDX) to send data
to EPA.
CDX will fully support electronic data exchange
requirements for major EPA environmental systems, enabling
faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state
nodes in real time, using new web-based data standards that
allow for automated data-quality checking.
States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use
CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA,
taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-
line customer support.
Customer help desk calls are resolved in a timely manner.
In preparation for increasing the exchange of information
through CDX, implement four data standards in 13 major
systems and develop four additional standards in 2003.
Number of private sector and local government entities, such
as water authorities, will use CDX to exchange
environmental data with EPA.
CDX offers online data exchange for all major national
systems by the end of FY 2004.
Number of states using CDX as the means by which they
routinely exchange environmental data with two or more
EPA media programs or Regions.
FY 2003
Actuals
49
7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
2000
13
46
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
12
40
20,000
96
States
Systems
States
Users
Percent
Data
Standards
Entities
Systems
States
Baseline:
The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Data Quality
In 2005 EPA increasingly uses environmental indicators to inform the public and manage for results.
In 2005 EPA will improve the quality and scope of information available to the public for environmental decision-making.
ESP-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In 2004 EPA increasingly uses environmental indicators to inform the public and manage for results.
In 2003 The public had access to a wide range of Federal, state, and local information about local enviromental conditions and features in
an area of their choice.
Performance Measures:
Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for
use by EPA's programs and partners in the Agency's strategic
planning and performance measurement process.
Responders to the baseline questionnaire on customer
satisfaction on the EPA Website report overall satisfaction
with their visit to EPA.GOV.
Window-to-My Environment is nationally deployed and
provides citizens across the country with Federal, state, and
local environmental information specific to an area of their
choice.
Establish the baseline for the suite of indicators that are used
by EPA's programs and partners in the Agency's strategic
planning and performance measurement process.
FY 2003
Actuals
Nationally
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
1
60
Report
Percent
Deployed
Report
Baseline:
An effort to develop a State of the Environment report based on environmental indicators was initiated in FY 2002.
Information Security
In 2005 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
In 2004 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
In 2003 OMB reported that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
Performance Measures:
Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess
Agency security programs reported annually to OMB under
Federal Information Security Management Act/Govt.
Information Security Reform Act.
Percent of intrusion detection monitoring sensors installed
and operational.
FY 2003
Actuals
75
100
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
75
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
75
Percent
Percent
Baseline:
In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and its strengthen information security infrastructure.
Agency-Wide IT Infrastructure
In 2004
Manage Agency-wide information technology assests consistent with the Agency's multi-year strategic information resource
management plan (Enterprise Architecture) reflecting current Agency mission priorities and resources.
Performance Measures:
Designated upgrades to technology infrastructure and
enterprise information tools occur on schedule per plan.
FY 2003
Actuals
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
Baseline:
The baseline for this program is zero, as it will just begin in FY 2004.
Report
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measures:
The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange requirements for
major EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
ESP-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using new web-based
data standards that allow for automated data-quality checking.
Private sector, local and tribal governments, and other regulated entities, including laboratories, will
choose to use CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA, taking advantage of
automated data quality checks and on-line customer support.
Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion.
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 to the
system. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance Plan [Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17,
2001] 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. There are plans to update these procedures during FY 2004 to
incorporate new technology and policy requirements. Automated edit checking routines are performed in
accordance with program specifications and CDX quality assurance guidance [Quality Assurance Project Plan for
the Interim Central Data Exchange System. Document number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001].
Data Quality Reviews: CDX successfully completed independent security risk assessment in the summer 2001. In
addition, routine audits of CDX data collection procedures 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.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors, such as pre-populating data whenever
possible, edit checks, etc. The possibility of an error in the number of states registered for CDX, e.g., double-
counting of some sort, is extremely remote (far less than 1 %).
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX coalesces the registration/submission requirements of many
different state-to-EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and tribal governments-to-EPA data exchanges into a single
web-based system. The system allows for a more consistent and comprehensive management and performance
tracking of many different external customers. 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 automated
quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EPA's
programs and partners in the Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process.
Performance Database: Initial collection of indicators compiled during the drafting of EPA's "Report on the
Environment," supplemented by indicators currently used in the Agency's strategic planning and performance
measurement process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, Annual Performance Report, Annual
ESP-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Operating Plan, and National Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements), will comprise an Agency
baseline of indicators.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Office of Environmental Information (OEI), the Office of Research
and Development (ORD), and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will review the planning documents
and establish a baseline of indicators in consultation with key Agency steering committees.
QA/QC Procedures: As the baseline is established, protocols also will be developed to ensure that the data
supporting the indicators are accurate and complete.
Data Quality Reviews: To be determined and conducted once a baseline has been established.
Data Limitations: The challenge is to develop suitable indicators with sufficient data of known quality.
Error Estimate: To be determined.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The baseline indicators and supporting data are in development.
References: EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" and "Technical Support Document" (EPA pub. no. 260-R-
02-006). Draft Report on the Environment Technical Document (Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both Dated
June 2003
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roePDF.htm
FY 2005 Performance Measure: Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security
programs reported annually to OMB under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).
Performance Database: Automated Security Serf-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 Serf 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. Independent evaluations are conducted on
the assessments by both the Office of Inspector General consistent with §3545 FISMA and the Chief Information
Officer's information security staff. 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 weakness. Program offices serf-report progress toward these milestones. EPA's
information security staff review these serf-reported data, conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss
anomalies with the submitting office.
Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staff's ability to validate all of the serf-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: http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecuritv/progreviews/: OMB
guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html: ASSERT web site:
https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security Self_Assessment Guide for Information
ESP-7
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Technology Systems, November 2001: 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 2005 Performance Measures: Responders to the baseline questionnaire on customer satisfaction on the
EPA Website report overall satisfaction with their visit to EPA.GOV. baseline levels.
Performance Database: Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire
Data Source: Data are provided by customers completing the questionnaire.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Customers visiting the EPA's Website are given an opportunity to
provide feedback by completing a short customer satisfaction questionnaire. In an effort to maintain the objectivity
of the questionnaire results, EPA has contracted with an independent group, which specializes in hosting online
surveys, to gather and analyze data. No personal information is collected as a result of completing the survey.
QA/QC Procedures: The EPA Website provides access to information produced by the EPA's program and
Regional offices. Information published on the Website must go through a product review conducted by the
program/Region producing the information. Additionally, all information must adhere to Agency Website policies
and guidance. The customer satisfaction questionnaire database has controls in place to prevent repeated entries.
Data Quality Reviews: An annual EPA Website accounts audit is conducted by The Office of Environmental
Information's (OEI's) Office of Information Analysis and Access and requires EPA's program offices to review the
content and quality of their material and to re-authorize who can post to their Web area. The customer satisfaction
database is reviewed quarterly.
Data Limitations: The customer satisfaction questionnaire is voluntary.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA Website was converted to a single look and feel that provides a more
consistent approach to presenting information on the Web. In FY 2004, to help users access the information more
easily, and to provide information in an integrated manner, the website's search engine will be replaced.
References: EPA Web site (www.epa.gov')
EFFICIENCY MEASURES/MEASURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
• EPA plans to track the costs incurred for the Central Data Exchange (CDX) relative to production system,
state node, and CDX user.
• Regarding information security, the Agency will measure the number of incidents that occurred from
known threats that should have been anticipated relative to the number of Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT) advisories implemented within EPA's infrastructure.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
EPA works with its state partners under the State/EPA Information Management Workgroup and the
Network Steering Board. This workgroup has created action teams to jointly develop key information projects.
Action teams consist of EPA, state, and Tribal members. They are structured to result in consensus solutions to
information management issues which affect states, tribes, and EPA, such as the development and use of
environmental data standards, and implementation of new technologies for collecting and reporting information.
EPA also participates in multiple workgroups with other Federal agencies including the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), and CIO Council. The Agency is
actively involved with several agencies in developing government-wide e-government reforms, and continues to
participate with the Office of Homeland Security and national security agencies on homeland security. These multi-
ESP-8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
agency workgroups are designed to ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies across Federal
agencies in order to support efficient data sharing.
EPA will continue to coordinate with key Federal data sharing partners including the USGS, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as state and local data sharing partners in public access
information initiatives. With respect to community-based environmental programs, EPA coordinates with state,
Tribal, and local agencies, and with non-governmental organizations, to design and implement specific projects.
The nature and degree of EPA's interaction with other entities varies widely, depending on the nature of the
project and the location(s) in which it is implemented. EPA is working closely with the FGDC and the USGS to
develop and implement the infrastructure for national spatial data. EPA is coordinating its program with other state
and Federal organizations, including the Council for Environmental Quality and the Environmental Council of
States, to insure that the appropriate context is represented for observed environmental and human health conditions.
EPA will continue to coordinate with other Federal agencies on IT infrastructure and security issues by
participating on the Federal CIO Council. For example, EPA (along with the Department of Labor) recently co-
chaired a Federal government committee on security. EPA will continue to participate on the CIO Council
committees on security, capital planning, workforce development, interoperability, and e-Gov, and will engage with
other Federal agencies in ensuring the infrastructure for homeland security.
EPA is a leader in many areas, such as E-dockets. EPA has a modern well-supported system that can host
other Agencies' docket systems, thereby reducing their costs to develop or deploy such a system. EPA will also
continue to coordinate with state agencies on IT infrastructure and security issues through state organizations such
as the National Association of State Information Resources Executives. In addition, EPA, along with other Federal
agencies, is involved in the OMB led e-Gov initiatives. As part of this effort, EPA, OMB, the Department of
Transportation, and ten other Federal agencies are examining the expansion of EPA's Regulatory Public Access
System, a consolidated on-line rule-making docket system providing a single point of access for all Federal rules.
EPA is also coordinating efforts with the National Archives and Records Administration on an e-records initiative.
This effort is aimed at establishing uniform procedures, requirements, and standards for electronic record keeping of
Federal e-Gov records.
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Clean Air Act and amendments
Clean Water Act and amendments
Clinger-Cohen Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Computer Security Act
Electronic Freedom of Information Act
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act
Federal Advisory Committee Act
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Food Quality Protection Act
Freedom of Information Act
Government Information Security Reform Action
Government Management Reform Act
Government Performance and Results Act
Paperwork Reduction Act
Privacy Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act and amendments
Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act
Toxic Substance Control Act
ESP-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Program Project
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
FY 2003
Actuals
$74,889.4
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$86,143.4
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$86,655.3
Resources will support activities related to maintaining the highest-quality standards for environmental
leadership and for effective internal management and fiscal responsibility of Agency resources. Activities under this
program/project will support the management of integrated planning, budgeting, financial management,
performance and accountability processes and systems to ensure effective stewardship of resources. In addition, this
program/project supports a full range of national, local and specialized accounting, financial and customer services
through the Agency's four Finance Centers.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Strengthen EPA's Management
In 2005 Strengthen EPA's financial management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in the
President's Management Agenda
In 2004 Strengthen EPA's financial management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in the
President's Management Agenda
In 2003 Strengthen EPA's financial management services in support of the Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in the
President's Management Agenda
Performance Measures:
Agency audited Financial
Statements are timely, and
receive an unqualified opinion.
FY 2003
Enacted
1
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
1
FY 2005
Request
1
Financial statement
Baseline: The Agency's audited FY 2004 Financial Statements will be submitted on time, in accordance with the new accelerated schedule,
to OMB and receive an unqualified opinion.
VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE GOALS
Performance Measure: Agency's audited Financial Statements meet the new accelerated schedule and receive
an unqualified opinion.
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: OMB acknowledgement of receipt of financial statements, OIG audit report.
QA/QC Procedures: OCFO management review, OIG audit
Data Quality Review: OIG audit. The annual financial audit opinion, rendered by the OIG, is a gauge of the
accuracy and fair presentation of the financial activity and financial balances of the Agency. The unqualified
opinion is rendered by the OIG.
Data Limitations: N/A
ESP-10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Fiscal Year 2003 EPA Annual Report
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
EPA will develop and issue guidance for executive agencies to use when purchasing goods and services in
response to Executive Order 13101 to show a preference for "environmentally preferable" products and services.
To achieve its mission, OCFO has undertaken specific coordination efforts with Federal and state agencies
and departments through two separate vehicles: 1) the National Academy of Public Administration's Consortium on
Improving Government Performance; 2) active contributions to standing interagency management committees,
including the Chief Financial Officers Council and the Federal Financial Managers' Council. These groups are
focused on improving resources management and accountability throughout the Federal government. OCFO also
coordinates appropriately with Congress and other Federal agencies, such as Department of Treasury, Office of
Management of Budget, and the General Accounting Office.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Annual Appropriations Act
Clinger-Cohen Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Computer Security Act
E - Government Act of 2002
Electronic Freedom of Information Act
EPA's Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (FAIR)
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), contract law, and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35,
40, 45, 46, 47)
Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (1982)
Freedom of Information Act
Government Management Reform Act (1994)
Improper Payments Information Act
Inspector General Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1988
Paperwork Reduction Act
Privacy Act
The Chief Financial Officers Act (1990)
The Government Performance and Results Act (1993)
The Prompt Payment Act (1982)
Title 5 United States Code
ESP-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Office of International Activities
Program Project
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
FY 2003
Actuals
$0.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$35.0
Office of the Administrator
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Administrative Law
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
FY 2003
Actuals
$874.0
$52,341.0
$4,464.4
$11,770.7
$2,840.1
$3,748.7
$2,105.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$45,198.9
$4,705.1
$12,113.8
$3,609.2
$4,409.0
$2,214.5
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$500.0
$46,082.8
$4,929.3
$12,414.2
$3,626.2
$4,757.1
$2,282.0
Office of the General Counsel
Program Project
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
FY 2003
Actuals
$877.9
$33,913.7
$8,871.3
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$1,153.4
$34,722.9
$12,240.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$1,889.6
$35,522.8
$12,521.7
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Offices of Regional Counsel (ORCs) will provide legal
representational services, legal counseling, and legal support for all Agency environmental activities and for all
activities necessary for the operation of the Agency. Additionally, these resources are used by the OGC to provide
environmental Alternative Dispute Resolution services.
Office of the Inspector General
Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
FY 2003
Actuals
$46,612.9
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$50,021.3
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$51,135.6
ESP-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
All Office of the Inspector General (OIG) work is planned based on the anticipated value toward
influencing resolution of the Agency's major management challenges, reducing risk, improving practices and
program operations, and saving taxpayer dollars while leading to the attainment of EPA's Strategic Goals. Our
strategic plan aligns OIG products and services with current Agency goals and priorities based upon emerging
issues, legislative initiatives, needs of various customers, clients and stakeholders, and multiple dynamic external
factors.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
In 2005 In 2005, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommendations,
potential savings and recoveries equal to 200 percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 102 actions
for better business operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or loss of
integrity.
In 2004 In 2004, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommendations,
contributing to potential savings and recoveries equal to 150 percent of the annual investment in the
OIG, 100 actions for greater efficiency and effectiveness, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative
actions reducing the risk of loss or integrity.
In 2003 In the Annual Performance Report, our results for APG 2 were combined with the results for APG 1.
Performance Measures:
Number of improved business practices and
systems.
Number of criminal, civil, and administrative
actions.
Number of business recommendations, risks, and
best practices identified.
Return on the annual dollar investment in the
OIG.
FY 2003
Actuals
138
83
264
856
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
100
80
240
150
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
102
80
240
200
Improvements
Actions
Recommendations
Percent
Baseline: In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of 150 business recommendations, 70 improved business
practices, and 50 criminal, civil, and administrative actions for improving Agency management; and a
100% potential dollar return on the investment in the OIG from savings and recoveries.
Audit and Advisory Services
In 2005 In 2005, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying
95 environmental recommendations, best practices, risks, or opportunities for improvement;
contributing to the reduction or elimination of 23 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 45
actions influencing environmental improvements or program changes.
In 2004 In 2004, the OIG will improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 80
recommendations, risks, or best practices; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 18
environmental risks; and 42 actions influencing positive environmental or health impacts.
ESP-13
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
In 2003 Improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 48 environmental recommendations,
risks, and best practices; contributing to the reduction of 9 environmental risks, and 47 actions
influencing positive environmental or health impacts.
Performance Measures:
Number of environmental risks reduced. 9 18 23 Risks
Number of environmental actions. 47 42 45 Improvements
Number of environmental recommendations, 48 80 95 Recommendations
risks, and best practices identified.
FY 2003
Actuals
9
47
48
FY 2004
Pres.
Bud.
18
42
80
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
23
45
95
Baseline: In FY 2002, the OIG established a baseline of: 75 recommendations, best practices and risks identified
contributing to improved Agency environmental goals; 15 environmental actions; and the reduction of 15
environmental risks. The FY 2004 performance measure targets for environmental measures were revised
downward due to actual experience gained within the past year.
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FY 2005 Performance Measures: Number of actions taken for environmental improvement, reductions in
environmental risks, and recommendations made for environmental improvement. Number of actions taken
for improvement in business practices, criminal/civil/administrative actions, potential dollar return, and
recommendations made for improved business practices.
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System is used to capture and aggregate
information on an array of measures in a logic model format, linking immediate outputs with longer term
intermediate outcomes and results. Because intermediate and long-term results may not be realized for several
years, only verifiable results are reported in the year completed, while others remain prospective until completed and
verified. Database measures include numbers of:l) recommendations for environmental and management
improvement; 2) legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental and integrity risks
identified, reduced or eliminated; 4) best practices identified and transferred; 5) examples of environmental and
management improvements; and 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved, fined or recovered.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG performance evaluations, audits,
research, court records and from EPA documents, data systems and reports that track environmental and
management actions or improvements made, risks reduced or avoided. OIG also collects independent data from
EPA's 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.
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 General, and
regularly reviewed by OIG management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and external
ESP-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
independent peer reviews. The statutory mission of the OIG is to independently evaluate the integrity of Agency
operations and reporting systems. The OIG has also issued its own data quality policy and procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by external groups on data or
database weaknesses in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results System.
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 +1-5%, while the error rate for reported outcomes is
estimated to be at least +/-10%.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and Results System as a
prototype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing it in FY 2004 with a more sophisticated system designed to integrate
data collection, and analysis. We also expect the quality of the data to improve as staff gains greater familiarity with
the system and measures. This system is a best practice in government for linking an array of measures from outputs
to eventual results and impacts. With enhanced linkages to customer satisfaction results and resource investments, it
will provide a full balanced scorecard with return on investment information for accountability and decision-making.
References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG Performance Measurement and
Results System with supporting documentation available either through the OIG Web Site or other Agency
databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oigearth.
Coordination with Other Agencies
The EPA Inspector General is a member of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), an
organization comprised of Federal Inspectors General (IG). The PCIE coordinates and improves the way IGs
conduct audits and investigations, and completes projects of government-wide interest. The EPA IG chairs the
PCIE's Environmental Consortium, GPRA Roundtable, and Human Resources Committee. The Consortium, which
seeks effective solutions to cross-cutting environmental issues, currently includes representatives from 19 executive
agencies and GAO. The OIG Computer Crimes Unit coordinates activities with other law enforcement
organizations that have computer crimes units such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and
the Department of Justice. In addition, the OIG participates with various inter-governmental audit forums,
professional associations, and other cross-governmental forums to exchange information, share best practices, and
directly collaborate efforts.
Statutory Authorities
Chief Financial Officers Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
Federal Information Security Management Act
Food Quality Protection Act
Government Management Reform Act
Inspector General Act, as amended
Reports Consolidation Act
Single Audit Act
ESP-15
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Special Analysis
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
In FY 2003 EPA strengthened its ability to
achieve environmental and human health results by
addressing its major management challenges. For the
second year, the Agency reported no material
weaknesses under the Federal Managers Financial
Integrity Act (Integrity Act).1 EPA also resolved in
FY 2003 almost one third of its less severe, internal
Agency weaknesses tracked by the Administrator.
To identify management issues and monitor progress
in addressing them, Agency senior leaders use a
system of activities that includes: internal and
independent reviews, program evaluation and
measurement; audits by the General Accounting
Office (GAO) and EPA's Office of Inspector General
(OIG); and input from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). These efforts ensure that program
activities are effectively carried out in accordance
with applicable laws and sound management policy,
and provide reasonable assurance that Agency
resources are protected against fraud, waste, abuse
and mismanagement.
In FY 2003 OMB recognized EPA's success
in correcting material weaknesses, which contributed
to the Agency achievement of a "green" status score
in Improved Financial Performance, a key initiative
of the President's Management Agenda.2 Following
are brief descriptions and summaries on efforts
underway to address the management challenges
facing the Agency.
Challenges in Addressing the Air Toxics
Regulatory/Residual Risk Program
While EPA has made substantial progress in
issuing Phase 1 air toxics standards, it was over two
years behind in fulfilling statutory responsibilities.
From FY 2001 to FY 2003, this issue has been an
Integrity Act weakness, and from FY 2002 to FY
2003 an OIG management challenge.
EPA has made significant progress in
correcting the Agency level weakness on Meeting
Statutory Deadlines for the Air Toxics
Regulatory/Residual Risk Program. Based on this
progress, the Agency is on target to complete all of
its 10-year Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards by February 27,
2004.3 In addition to strengthening the air toxics
program to prevent further delays in issuing the
MACT, EPA has developed a comprehensive,
integrated air toxics program that better meets long
term goals by addressing risks from all sources of
toxics—major, area, mobile and indoor sources. The
Agency continues to shift the emphasis of its air
toxics program to a risk-based approach that
addresses specific needs of the various categories of
residual risk and their special handling in the Clean
Air Act. EPA is developing site-specific risk
assessment guidance4 that will allow a facility to
demonstrate whether the health risks it poses to the
surrounding community are low enough to comply
with the residual risk standards. The Agency is also
continuing to analyze the risk of the remaining 2-, 4-,
and 7-year MACT source categories. As part of the
effort to address concerns about data gaps for toxicity
and different data collection and analysis methods,
EPA is also developing an efficiency measure on the
cause-and-effect relationships between the air toxics
program and changes in environmental conditions or
cancer incidence. In addition, the Agency is
strengthening its sound scientific foundation for an
effective risk-based program. This year, the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) completed an external review
of the Agency's air toxics research strategy5 EPA is
also working with state and local agencies in a joint
Air Toxics Monitoring Steering Committee to design
a national toxics monitoring network. The SAB has
expressed clear support to the Agency's approach for
developing this capacity through monitoring pilots
carried out under the sponsorship of the joint
committee. The data analysis phase of the initial
assessment work, reflected in a 10-city air toxics
1 Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982, Public
Law 97-255 (September 8, 1982).
2 Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office
of the President, Federal Management, The President's
Management Agenda. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/pma index
.html.
U.S. EPA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html.
4 Air Toxics Website - http://www.epa. go v/ttn/atw/.
5 Science Advisory Board Website -
http://www.epa.gov/sciencel/03proiect/proi0328.htm
SA-1
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
monitoring pilot project, was completed in mid-
2003.6 Data from this effort is helping to complete
the design of a network for a national air toxics
characterization in FY 2004. While EPA works to
develop better indicators of air toxic risk reduction, it
continues to effectively reduce air toxics, which since
1990 have been reduced by 1.5 million tons per year,
a 34% reduction7 When all the MACT rules are
fully implemented, in addition to efforts by states and
industry, toxic emissbns from large industrial
facilities will decrease by 1.7 million tons per year or
63% from 1990-1993 baseline levels.8
Reduce the Backlog of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits 9
Expired NPDES permits might not reflect
the most recent applicable effluent guidelines, water
quality standards, or Total Maximum Daily Loads
posing a threat to the environment. Necessary
improvements in water quality could be delayed if
high-quality permits are not issued timely. From FY
2001 to FY 2003 this issue has been an Integrity Act
weakness and an OIG management challenge.
EPA's strategy for improving the program
has significantly reduced the backlog. 84 percent of
major facilities have current permits (63 percent of
the targeted reduction). 82 percent of individual
minor facilities have current permits (79 percent of
the targeted reduction). When facilities covered by
non-storm water general permits are included in the
count of minors, 85 percent have current permits (87
percent of the targeted reduction).
In addition to significantly reducing the
backlog, EPA is continuing to improve permit
6 Technology Transfer Website -
http: //www. epa. go v/ttn/amtic/
7 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Analysis based
on emission projections using the EMS-HAP version 2
model and the 2000 version of the 1990/1993 baseline
inventory. EMS-HAP available at
http://www.epa.gov/scramQ01/tt22.htmtfaspen. Projection-
related inputs available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
8 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Analysis based
on emission projections using the EMS-HAP version 2
model and the 2000 version of the 1990/1993 baseline
inventory. EMS-HAP available at
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen. Projection-
related inputs available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/proiection/emshap.html.
9 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Backlog Reduction.
Available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/backlog.cfm.
efficiency and quality. EPA's recently revised
strategy includes increased focus on: effective
prioritization of permits for environmental Esults,
stronger NPDES program integrity, and increased
efficiency through permit streamlining. To prioritize
permits, in FY 2003, EPA pilot tested the use of a
permit prioritization checklist and is working with
regions and states to finalize it. EPA is also
reviewing permit data quality, increasing the
percentage of permit records with locational data to
better characterize the environmental impact, and
modernizing PCS for anticipated implementation in
FY 2006. To strengthen NPDES program integrity,
EPA is holding regular training courses for permit
writers, and working with regions and states to
develop and pilot quality management tools,
including regional and state self assessments,
quarterly trend reports, and state NPDES program
profiles. As part of the effort to increase efficiency,
the Agency is bundling lower priority permits in a
streamlined process, facilitating watershed-based
permitting approaches, encouraging use of general
permits, and developing and distributing electronic
permit application and permit writing tools. In 2003,
EPA also made available, through the internet,
scanned copies of major permits and fact sheets. The
web-accessible permits improve access to
information, provide models and improve data
sharing.
Management of Biosolids
OIG raised concerns regarding the scientific
studies regarding risk and the resources devoted to
implementing the biosolids program. From FY 2002
to FY 2003 this issue has been an OIG management
challenge.
EPA continues to meet its statutory
obligations under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
pertaining to sewage sludge while it addresses
concerns about the adequacy of the sewage sludge
rule, significantly expands biosolids-related research,
and continues to actively address biosolids violations
and enforce safe land-application of biosolids to
prevent risk to human health or the environment.
EPA set into motion an inclusive process to address
concerns by establishing an intra-Agency committee
to develop a draft Agency response to National
Research Council (NRC) 2002 recommendations for
additional research.10 In April 2003 EPA published
10 National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life
Studies, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology,
Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and
Practices (2002). Available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10426.html.
SA-2
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
its draft response in the Federal Register for public
comment.11 and announced its final response and
strategy in the Federal Register on December 31,
2003. The December 31, Federal Register notice
also included the final decision on identifying
additional pollutants in biosolids that may warrant
further regulation §405(d)(2)(C) of the CWA. It
describes a multi-pathway screening risk analysis
from which EPA identified 15 pollutants for further
evaluation and data gathering to determine whether
they may warrant regulation under the CWA.
On October 17, 2003, EPA announced its
final decision not to regulate dioxins in land applied
sewage sludge.13 This decision was based on the
results of a peer reviewed multi-pathway risk
assessment that took five years to develop and
finalize. The results of this risk assessment
demonstrated that the risk is small of new cancers
from exposure to dioxins for a highly exposed
population of farm families that use sewage sludge
on their farms as a fertilizer and soil amendment.
EPA also evaluated the potential risks to wildlife
from exposure to dioxins from land applied sewage
sludge. The results of this evaluation indicated that
there are no significant ecological impacts.
EPA is undertaking research and analyses
initiatives to improve and expand its scientific
understanding and management of the biosolids
program. In addition, EPA has taken actions to
address biosolids violations and will continue to take
actions to address instances where biosolids pose an
endangerment to human health or the environment.
From FY 1995 to FY2002 EPA undertook over 500
enforcement actions, and from FY 2000 to FY 2002
conducted approximately 380 inspections.14 To assist
the states and regions in their oversight of the
biosolids program, EPA has, either in place or in
development, tools to assist and promote compliance
with biosolids regulatory requirements. For example,
the Agency recently developed revised guidance and
training on NPDES inspections, including biosolids.15
EPA is also continuing to work with states as it
modernizes the Permit Compliance System (PCS) to
allow for more effective program oversight. As part
of the PCS modernization, a separate workgroup
(including states and EPA) was devoted to the data
needed to manage the biosolids program.16 The
anticipated implementation date for the modernized
PCS is December 2005. In addition to this national
system, states and facilities may choose to use the
Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS) as an
additional management tool.
EPA also has been working closely with the
National Biosolids Partnership to develop and pilot
test a voluntary system for biosolids which seeks to
enhance biosolids management from pretreatment
through processing and ultimate disposition.
Currently there are 62 wastewater treatment
authorities in the EMS and EMS development
program. At the end of Calendar 2003, the first two
authorities, Orange County, California and the City
of Los Angeles California attained EMS status with
the awarding of EMS certificates by the National
Biosolids Partnership. The Agency has also been
actively coordinating with states and regions through
a cross-office Biosolids Program Implementation
Team. EPA also continues to conduct state of the
biosolids workshops. The Agency held the most
recent conference on the "State of Science for the
Land Application of Biosolids" in January, 2004. In
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and many other stakeholders, EPA plans to conduct
field studies at selected locations to assess potential
emissions of certain chemical and microbial agents
from biosolids land-application sites.
EPA's Working Relationships with States
The National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS)17 established working
EPA-state partnerships designed to focus scarce
resources on priority environmental problems. Under
NEPPS, jointly-developed priorities, strategies, and
measures for assessing progress are articulated in
performance partnership agreements (PPAs).
Performance partnership grants (PPGs),18 a primary
tool for implementing NEPPS, allow states and
Tribes to combine multiple EPA grants into one grant
directed to their needs and priorities. FromFY 2001
1' Federal Register, April 9, 2003 at 68 Federal Register
17379-17395.
12 Federal Register, December 31, 2003 at 68 Federal Register 75531-75552
13 Federal Register, October 24, 2003 at 68 Federal
Register 61084-61096.
14 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Permit Compliance System (PCS) database.
15 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Clean Water Act/NPDES Computer Based
Inspector Training CD ROM, August, 2003.
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, ICIS Phase II, Permit Compliance System
Modernization, Final Design Document, September, 2003.
17 U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Performance Partnership.
Available at http: //www. epa. gov/ocirpage/nepps/index.htm
18 U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Performance Partnership.
Available at http: //www. epa. go v/ocirpage/nepps/index.htm
SA-2
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
to FY 2003, NEPPS implementation has been a GAO
or OIG major management challenge.
The Agency continues its long-term
commitment to working with state agencies to
improve management of national environmental
programs and promote implementation of NEPPS. A
joint EPA-Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
workgroup was established in the spring of 2003 to
further advance joint planning and performance
partnerships. After a series of working sessions, EPA
and state leaders agreed to better align E?A national,
regional, and state planning processes and facilitate
more meaningful joint priority setting. To strengthen
the role of PPAs as the defining document for the
state-EPA partnership, they also agreed upon the
essential elements of PPAs. Implementation will
begin in 2004, with particular focus on piloting the
improved processes with a subset of states that have
expressed an interest and commitment to participate
during the FY 2005 planning cycle. The EPA-ECOS
workgroup will monitor the initial effort to ensure
continuous improvement.
The Performance Partnership Steering
Committee comprised of senior leaders from across
EPA, meets periodically to provide overall direction
and resolve policy issues related to improving
performance partnerships. Responding to a major
need identified during a joint EPA-state meeting on
PPGs in January 2003, EPA developed a PPG
training course that was delivered to EPA and state
officials in a series of workshops across the country
during the year. In FY 2004, EPA will focus on
addressing issues raised during the training sessions.
These issues include timing of grants, use of
carryover funds, joint evaluation, and mitigating
conflicts between performance partnership principles
and categorical grants guidance. Regional and
program office NEPPS coordinators hold regular
conference calls to share experiences and discuss
issues, and the Agency continues periodic reporting
on the status of PPAs and PPGs to keep the states,
Congress, and other stakeholders and partners
informed. With these activities serving as the
foundation for further progress, EPA is committed to
continuing training, working group sessions, joint
reviews, and developing and implementing a strategy
to market the successes and benefits of performance
partnerships.
Information System Security
EPA continues to improve the management
and oversight of the Agency information security
program with the development and implementation
of effective information security tools and processes
that mitigate risks to the Agency's data and systems.
From FY 2001 to FY 2003 this topic has been an
Integrity Act weakness, and GAO or OIG
management challenge.
EPA has successfully demonstrated and
maintained a high level of security for its information
resources and environmental data. In FY 2002, the
Agency developed and began implementing a
comprehensive strategy to systematically address
security-related deficiencies in accordance with the
Government Information Security Reform Act,19 and
in F Y 2003, the Agency validated the effectiveness of
these corrective actions. The corrective actions
include ensuring annual security self-assessments of
Agency general support systems and major
applications in accordance with Federal Information
Security Management Act20 and relevant OMB
directives; conducting in-depth analyses of Capital
Planning and Investment Control system security
plans to determine that the controls provide the
anticipated protections; ensuring regular risk
assessments and follow-up on major applications and
general support systems; monitoring Agency
networked computer servers for compliance with
security standards and sending quarterly reports to
senior officials summarizing their compliance status;
conducting internal and external network penetration
testing; and monitoring EPA's firewall and intrusion
detection system to ensure security of the Agency's
cyber perimeter.
EPA plans to sustain information security
improvements through consistent security control
implementation, ongoing evaluation, and regular
testing to ensure that the policies and procedures are
effective. In FY 2004, the Agency will focus on
establishing a robust quality assurance program,
improving the security training program for staff with
significant security responsibilities, ensuring
contingency plans are updated, and establishing a
process to ensure that the Agency's information
security practices are implemented throughout the
life cycle of information technology systems.
Information Resources Management (TRM) and
Data Quality/Environmental and Performance
Information Management
To acquire, manage, and deliver the data the
Agency needs to make decisions and monitor
19 FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 106-
398, Title X, Subtitle G.
20 FY 2003 Electronic Government Act, Public Law 107-
347, Title III.
SA-4
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
23
progress against environmental goals, EPA continues
to improve data management and use by providing
tools and planning processes for effective data
sharing, data integration, and identification of key
data gaps. From FY 2001 to FY 2003 this issue has
been an Integrity Act weakness and a GAO and OIG
management challenge.
EPA's progress includes completion of the
EPA Strategic Information Plan, A Framework for
the Future'?1 promulgation of six Reinventing
Environmental Information data standards;
development of the Data Architecture, a component
of the Agency Enterprise Architecture (EA);
development of the draft Data and Information
Quality Strategic Plan;14 completion of a second set
of six new data standards; and improvement of data
collection processes through the Central Data
Exchange. EPA is working with the states and
tribes, through the Environmental Data Standards
Council, to develop data standards for the exchange
of environmental data. To facilitate data standard
implementation, EPA has established technical and
business guidelines for the use of standard data
elements, and is providing technical assistance.
Building on the FY 2003 Draft Report on the
Environment?6 EPA is continuing the Environmental
Indicators Initiative, a long-term effort to work with
stakeholders, partners and the public to identify and
fill key data gaps.
All EPA organizations have approved
Quality Management Plans, and are focusing on
implementing and integrating quality procedures into
business practices. During 2004, EPA will continue
its efforts with states and tribes to develop the
National Environmental Information Exchange
21 EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Frame-work for the
Future. Available at
www.epa.gov/oei/pdf/Strategic Information Plan 7 29 0
2.pdf
22 U.S. EPA, Environmental Data Registry. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/edr/
23 U.S. EPA, DRAFT Data and Information Quality
Strategic Plan (January 2002). Available from the Office
of Environmental Information's Office of Planning,
Resources, and Outreach.
24 U.S. EPA, EPA Enterprise Architecture, Version 1.0
(January 2003). Available from the Office of
Environmental Information's Office of Technology and
Operations Planning.
25 U.S. EPA, Central Data Exchange. Available at
www.epa.gov/cdx/
26 U.S. EPA Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (EPA-
260-R-02-006, June 2003), available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
Network, a web-based system that enables electronic
data exchanges that improve data quality and
timeliness, reduce burden and costs, and improve
public access. The Agency plans for at least 25 states
to have Exchange servers by the end of FY 2004.
EPA efforts to improve oversight and
management of Agency laboratory quality systems
include developing a web site of best practices of
laboratory policies, procedures, tools and training to
improve capacity to produce quality environmental
data. The Agency's Forum on Environmental
Measurements (FEM) developed a draft policy to
ensure and demonstrate the competency of Agency
laboratories. The draft policy, currently undergoing
Science Policy Council review, requires Agency
laboratories to become accredited and participate in
inter-laboratory comparison studies to demonstrate
continuing competency. The draft policy also
mandates assessments by external organizations or
assessors in cases where appropriate accreditation
programs do not exist.
Making Regulatory Innovations Successful27
EPA has invested considerable time and
resources to "reinvent" environmental regulations
within the existing statutory framework, but GAO is
concerned that EPA must address statutory obstacles
in order for innovative regulatory programs to
succeed. In FY 2002 and FY 2003, regulatory
reinvention has been a GAO major management
challenge.
EPA is committed to continue testing and
implementing innovative approaches to achieve
environmental results. This continued commitment
allows progress to occur in the near term, while
gaining experience in how new legislative authority
could address impediments without undermining the
benefits of today's environmental statutes or
sacrificing important safeguards in the Nation's
environmental protection system. In 2003, EPA
continued and enhanced its robust approach to
regulatory innovation. For example, EPA has been
instrumental in its facilitation of the transfer of the
Environmental Results Program (ERP), an innovation
model originated in Massachusetts self-certification
innovation launched in the late 1990's, to other states
and environmental problem areas. ERP interlinks the
three components of compliance assistance, self-
certification and performance measurement. ERP
27 U.S. EPA National Center for Environmental
Innovation. Available athttp://www.epa.gov/innovation.
SA-5
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
compliance assistance brings together all regulatory
requirements and pollution prevention best
management practices in a "plain English"
workbook. Facility self-certification can be single or
multimedia based and is prepared in a user friendly
format. ERP performance measurement is based on
statistically valid inspection protocols and allows
tracking whole business sectors as well individual
facilities. The three components are interlinked so
workbook sections relate directly to self-certification
questions and inspection protocols for performance
measurement and tracking. The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP)
has found that ERP reduces cost and burden for
regulators and regulated entities. MA DEP estimates
that ERP has resulted in dry cleaners reducing their
perchloroethyane emissions by 22 tons, and printers
their volatile organic compound emissions by 4 tons.
Also, underground storage tanks ERP projects are
being implemented in several states as well as other
small-business dominated sectors.
EPA continues to work with the
Environmental Council of the States (EGOS) to
improve the EPA processes needed to create
regulatory flexibility for state innovation projects.
For example, EPA and EGOS are developing a Joint
Workplan designed to align EPA and state innovation
efforts so they address the same priority
environmental problems, leveraging the combined
efforts of EPA and the states, and driving innovation
into core state environmental programs. EPA also
successfully piloted a state innovation grant
competition and awarded several state grants to
provide seed money to the state-initiated projects.
Based on an independent evaluation of the first-year
innovation competition, the Agency is expanding this
state innovation funding idea. The second
solicitation was issued in October 2003 and is
targeted at priorities identified in consultation with
states and other stakeholders. This kind of program,
and the discussion between state environmental
commissioners and EPA senior leadership, can
inform the legislative process, and potentially support
a clearer understanding of how specific legislative
provisions could be designed to overcome perceived
barriers in existing statutes. The greatest potential
and anticipated benefit of this innovation work $
effectively taking lessons learned during
experimental pilots and applying them to our national
and state programs, and potentially making
regulatory change. EPA is working with the states in
the grant program to measure and evaluate the results
of the state pilots. EPA describes a specific strategic
target for the State Innovation Grant Program in the
Agency's Strategic Plan for 2003-2008 to measure
improvement in environmental protection resulting
from alternative approaches to environmental
protection.
Human
Capital
Strategy
Implementation/Employee Competencies
EPA recognizes the importance of placing
the right people, with the appropriate skills, where
they are needed. The Agency needs a systematic
approach to workforce planning, supported by
reliable and valid workforce data, and should focus
on sustaining adequate scientific expertise. From FY
2001 to FY 2003 this issue has been an Integrity Act
weakness, and a GAO and OIG management
challenge.
EPA made significant progress toward
addressing this weakness and achieving the
President's Management Agenda (PMA) Human
Capital initiative. EPA received green progress
scores for five of six quarters28 The Agency aligned
its human capital planning activities with strategic
planning and budgeting processes. EPA has issued a
new Strategy for Human Capital, Investing in Our
People II, 2004 and Beyond2 to build on a history of
solid accomplishments and chart the course for the
future. The Strategy identifies 80 specific action
items for FY 2004 that set the stage for achieving
Human Capital excellence and for attaining a green
status score in the Human Capital portion of the
PMA. Some of those action items include:
National
System,30
I. Implementing the
Strategic Workforce Planning
which links competencies to mission needs
along major occupations, and will provide
managers with a tool to inventory workforce
competencies and project future needs to
identify skill gaps.
II. Continuing to offer successful
developmental programs that address the
28 U. S. Executive Office of the President. "The President's
Management Agenda." Washington, DC: Available only
on the Internet at:
http://www.results.gov/agenda/index.html
29 U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management. "Strategy for Human Capital, Investing in
Our People II, 2004 and Beyond." Washington, DC: EPA.
Available only on the Intranet at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/oarm/2003shc/index.html
30 U. S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management. "National Strategic Workforce Planning
System." Washington, DC: EPA. Available only on the
intranet at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/institute/wds/planning.htm
SA-6
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
needs of all employees from administrative
personnel to executive leadership.
III. Assessing the effectiveness of the
Workforce Development Strategy31
programs, by conducting several program
evaluations and making enhancements as
indicated by these evaluations. These
evaluations will serve as a "test bed" for an
evaluation methodology that will be applied
to other human capital initiatives.
IV. Providing greater support for
national recruitment initiatives and
developing a coordinated approach to
Agency-wide recruitment and outreach
initiatives.
To ensure that the Agency's Human Capital
activities support the agency mission and are being
effectively conducted, EPA is implementing a
Human Capital Accountability Plan.
Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Non-
Traditional Attacks
While EPA's efforts to enhance critical
infrastructure protection are commendable, EPA
needs to better define expectations and develop
systems to effectively measure and analyze program
performance to ensure the desired state of security
and achieve its goals. This issue has been an OIG
management challenge since FY 2002.
EPA made significant progress in
implementing the Agency's Homeland Security
Strategic Plan^2 a comprehensive approach to
carrying out EPA's responsibilities in responding to
and recovering from acts of environmental and other
terrorists attacks. In FY 2003, EPA established an
Office of Homeland Security (OHS) as the lead
office for ensuring implementation of the Homeland
Security Strategic Plan, coordinating homeland
security policy development across EPA, and serving
as primary liaison with senior officials in the
Department of Homeland Security and other Federal
agencies with responsibilities for homeland security.
The Homeland Security Strategic Plan was updated
and is currently undergoing a quality control review.
31 U. S. EPA Office of Administration and Resources
Management. "Workforce Development Strategy."
Washington, DC: EPA. Available only on the Intranet at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/institute/wds.htm
32 U.S. EPA Strategic Plan for Homeland Security.
Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/downloads/epa_homeland_se
curitv strategic plan.pdf
EPA plans to release the updated Plan during the
second quarter of FY 2004.
EPA responded to requests for information
and reports from the White House Homeland
Security Council, Department of Homeland Security,
White House Office of Management and Budget,
General Accounting Office, Congress, and members
of the public. The Agency is also developing a
homeland security information management system.
EPA is working to complete a number of
inter- and intra-agency efforts related to homeland
security, including critical infrastructure, bio-defense,
and laboratory capacity. In addition, EPA convened
a Homeland Security Policy Coordinating
Committee, and is working with senior staff to
develop and resolve homeland security policy
priorities at EPA. EPA also formed a working group
to explore issues associated with the management and
analysis of national security information and other
sensitive information. The group completed a
program review during the first quarter of FY 2004,
and EPA is currently reviewing proposed
recommendations. EPA's plans to implement
accepted recommendations should begin during the
second quarter of FY 2004.
Linking Mission and Management
OIG believes that EPA has begun
developing the process for linking resources to
results, but needs to strengthen its ability to link costs
to goals by working cooperatively with its State and
Federal agency partners to develop more outcome-
oriented goals and measures, and by improving
Agency accounting procedures. This issue has been
an OIG management challenge from FY 2001 to FY
2003.
EPA's sustained focus on improving the
way the Agency manages for results and uses cost
and performance information in decision making has
resulted in government-wide recognition for the
Agency's achievements in Budget and Performance
Integration under the President's Management
Agenda. The Agency's accomplishments in FY 2003
include the following: (1) revising EPA's strategic
plan to include five outcome-oriented goals and
supporting objectives and sub-objectives that have
clear linkages with the work of regions, states, and
tribes; (2) developing Regional Plans as a common
framework for linking EPA's Regional priorities to
the Agency's five strategic goals; (3) increasing the
use of annual performance information and trend data
in developing the FY 2005 budget; and (4)
developing more outcome-oriented annual
SA-7
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
performance goals and measures as well as efficiency
measures. In addition, in FY 2003, EPA enhanced its
cost accounting capabilities and strengthened the
linkages between resources and performance by
developing a new accounting framework that will
allow EPA to track resources across the five new
goals. Further, EPA released a Draft Report on the
Environment'1' as part of the Agency's
"environmental indicators initiative," which is
intended to help assess the current state of the
environment and to provide a baseline against which
future performance can be measured.
EPA joined only two other Federal agencies
in receiving a "green" status score for Improved
Financial Performance. OMB provided this
distinction in recognition of the Agency's significant
accomplishments in these areas, including EPA's use
of financial and performance information h day-to-
day program management and decision making.
OMB also provided the Agency with progress scores
of "green" for Budget and Performance Integration
under the President's Management Agenda for the
seventh consecutive quarter since June 2002. EPA
received a 2003 President's Quality Award for
financial management,34 the highest recognition in
government given to Federal agencies for excellence
in management. In addition, EPA was selected as a
finalist last year for the 2002 President's Quality
Award in the area of Budget and Performance
Integration. While EPA acknowledges the
importance of the improvement opportunities
identified by the OIG, it has made significant
progress in this area, and is effectively working on
further achievements.
Grants Management and Use of Assistance
Agreements
EPA needs to improve oversight for the
award and administration of assistance agreements to
ensure effective and efficient use of resources. From
FY 2001 to FY 2003 this issue has been an ffA
weakness, and a GAO, OMB or OIG management
challenge.
33 U.S. EPA Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (EPA-
260-R-02-006, June 2003), available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm.
34 EPA received 2003 Presidential Award for
Management Excellence, media advisory. Available at
http://www.opm.gov/pressreV2003/WA-POA.asp.
35 EPA selected as finalist for the 2002 Presidential
Quality Award in Area of Budget and Performance
Integration, news release. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gOV/news/releases/2002/l 1/200211
25 2.html.
Each fiscal year, EPA awards, on the
average, slightly less than half of the Agency's
budget in grants,36 and it is implementing a
comprehensive approach to manage these grant
dollars effectively and ensure they further the
Agency's mission. Specifically, in FY 2003, EPA
developed the Agency's first long-term Grants
Management Plan.37 The Plan provides the
framework for ensuring that EPA's grant programs
meet the highest management and fiduciary standards
and further the Agency's strategic program goals.
A key objective of the long-term Plan is to
strengthen accountability for grants management. To
that end, EPA issued directives emphasizing the need
to hold staff accountable for effective grants
management, and requiring managers to include
compliance with grants management policies in mid-
year performance discussions with staff. In addition,
EPA is requiring Headquarters and Regional offices
to include in their Integrity Act Assurance letters a
description of their efforts to address the grants
management weakness. The Agency is
supplementing these efforts with an ongoing review
of employee performance standards to ensure that
standards adequately reflect grants management
responsibilities.
EPA is aggressively implementing its
recently established policies for grants competition
and post-award monitoring. In FY 2003, the Agency
has more than doubled the percentage of competitive
awards to non-profit organizations covered by the
competition policy over the level achieved in FY
2002, and the new post-award monitoring policy will
significantly increase the level of baseline and
advanced monitoring of grantees. All Agency Senior
Resource Officials (SROs) submitted FY 2003 post-
award monitoring plans to ensure a strong level of
commitment to effective grants management and
accountability. EPA also has developed a new
performance incentives award program for grants
management that will recognize offices that exceed
the performance measures in the long-term Plan.
Other accomplishments include: revamped training
programs focusing on core competencies of project
officers and grants specialists; a comprehensive, new
system of grants management reviews of EPA
offices; highlighting in the Agency's 2003 Strategic
36 U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management. "EPA Grants Information and Control
System (GICS) database." Washington, DC: EPA.
37 U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management. "EPA Grants Management Plan."
Washington, DC: EPA. Available only through the
Internet:http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf
SA-8
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency FY 2005 Annual Plan
Plan the importance of effective grants management results; and convening two meetings of the Grants
in carrying out the Agency's strategic goals; Management Council, composed of SROs, to provide
developing an interim policy on grant environmental for high-level planning and coordination.
SA-9
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In F Y 2005, EPA will have several user fee
programs in operation. These user fee programs are
as follows:
Current Fees
?? Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Since 1989, this fee has been collected for
the review and processing of new chemical
Pre-Manufacturing Notifications (PMN)
submitted to EPA by the chemical industry.
These fees are paid at the time of submission
of the PMN for review by EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. 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 expects to collect
$1,800,000 in PMN fees in FY 2005 if the
existing fee structure is not altered in FY
2004. The removal of the statutory fee cap is
discussed below under User Fee Proposals.
?? 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 less
than $500,000 will be deposited in FY 2005.
Pesticides Fees
The FY 2005 President's Budget assumes
passage of the FY 2004 Omnibus Appropriations
Act, which includes authorization for a new fee
structure for the pesticides program, under the
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act for 2003.
The new structure includes an extension to the
Maintenance fee for older pesticide review, and a
new Enhanced Registration Services fee, which will
allow the Agency to accelerate the review of new
registration actions for pesticides.
77
77
Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension
The Maintenance Fee provides funding for
both the Tolerance Reassessment and the
Reregistration programs. The Pesticides
Registration Improvement Act extends the
maintenance fee through 2008, to coincide
with the schedules for these programs.
Tolerance reassessment is slated for
completion in 2006, under the FQPA statute,
and the final reregistration decisions are
scheduled for 2008. In FY 2005, the Agency
expects collections of $27,000,000.
Enhanced Registration Services
The Pesticides Registration Improvement
Act includes fees for accelerated service on
registration decisions for pesticides. This
will allow industry to move new pesticides
to the market more quickly, often providing
an alternative to older, riskier pesticides in
use. These fees will be paid to the Agency
at the time the registration action request is
submitted. In FY 2005, Agency collections
are estimated at $19,400,000.
Removal of the Statutory Cap on the Pre-
Manufacturing Notification Fee
The Agency is proposing authorizing and
appropriations language to remove the
statutory cap on the existing Pre-
Manufacturing Notification (PMN) fees to
allow EPA to cover the full cost of the PMN
program. The authorizing language would
remove the current statutory cap in the
Toxic Substances Control Act on the total
fee that EPA is allowed to charge. The fee
change would be subject to an
appropriations language trigger that would
allow the fees to be counted as discretionary.
Under the current fee structure, the Agency
would collect $1,800,000 in FY 2005. The
increase in PMN fees will be deposited into
a special fund in the U.S. Treasury, available
to the Agency, subject to appropriation.
After the anticipated rulemaking, the
Agency estimates collections of an
additional $4,000,000 in FY 2005.
SA-10
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
77
Pesticides Registration Fee
The Pesticides Registration Improvement
Act rescinds the authority to collect
pesticides registration fees to offset base
program costs. This budget proposes
amending the Act to allow collection of this
fee. Collections are estimated at
$26,000,000.
Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance
Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act
of 1990 and is managed by the Office of Air
and Radiation. Fee collections began in
August 1992. This fee is imposed on
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light
and heavy trucks and motorcycles. EPA has
a final rule currently under review at OMB
that updates fees for industries currently
paying fees and setting forth fees for newly
regulated vehicles and engines. The fees
established for new compliance programs
are 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-wackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers,
tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors, tugs,
watercraft, jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and
recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles,
snowmobiles). The fees cover EPA's cost
of certifying new engines and vehicles and
monitoring compliance of in-use engines
and vehicles. In FY 2005, EPA expects to
collect $18,000,000 from this fee.
SA-11
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2005, the Agency begins its ninth
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 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
eighteen permanent members from the program
offices and the regional offices.
Two Agency Activities begun in FY 1997
will continue into FY 2005. These are the Agency's
data processing and telecommunications operations,
managed by the Office of Technology Operations and
Planning, and Agency postage costs, managed by the
Office of Administration. The Agency's FY 2005
budget request includes resources for these two
Activities in each National Program Manager's
submission, totaling approximately $148.0 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.
SA-12
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
STATE and TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS (STAG)
Appropriation Account
(Dollars in thousands)
FY 2003
Enacted
Budget
FY 2004
President's
Budget
FY 2005
Pres Bud
Total
Difference
FY 2005 PB
v.
FY 2004 PB
STATE and TRIBAL GRANT
ASSISTANCE
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE
State Revolving Funds
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Total Infrastructure
STAG PROJECTS
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Special Needs Projects
Mexican Border
Alaskan Native Villages
Puerto Rico
Total Special Needs Projects
Congressional Earmarks
Total - STAG Projects
TOTAL STAG
$1,142,901.8 $1,202,700.0 $1,252,300.0 $49,600.0
$1,341,225.0 $850,000.0 $850,000.0 $0.0
$844,475.0 $850,000.0 $850,000.0 $0.0
$2,185,700.0 $1,700,000.0 $1,700,000.0
$506,302.2
$218,500.0
$279,500.0
$0.0
$89,911.8
$49,675.0
$42,723.1
$92,398.1
$323,992.3
$120,500.0
$50,000.0
$40,000.0
$8,000.0
$98,000.0
$0.0
$120,500.0
$65,000.0
$50,000.0
$40,000.0
$4,000.0
$94,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$65,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
-$4,000.0
-$4,000.0
$0.0
$61,000.0
$3,834,904.0 $3,121,200.0 $3,231,800.0
$110,600.0
SA-13
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
CATEGORICAL GRANTS PROGRAM (STAG)
(Dollars in millions)
$1.202
$1,158? /I
$643
$665
$674
$745
$880
$885
$1,006
$1,074
$1,252
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
In FY 2005, the President's Budget requests a total of
$1,252 million for 25 "categorical" program grants
for state and Tribal governments. This is an increase
of $49.6 million over FY 2004. EPA will continue
to pursue its strategy of building and supporting state,
local and Tribal capacity to implement, operate, and
enforce the Nation's environmental laws. Most
environmental laws envision establishment of a
decentralized nationwide structure to protect public
health and the environment. In this way,
environmental goals will ultimately be achieved
through the actions, programs, and commitments of
state, Tribal and local governments, organizations
and citizens.
In FY 2005, EPA will continue to offer
flexibility to state and Tribal governments to manage
their environmental programs as well as provide
technical and financial assistance to achieve mutual
environmental goals. First, EPA and its state and
Tribal partners will continue implementing the
National Environmental Performance Partnership
System (NEPPS). NEPPS is designed to allow states
more flexibility to operate their programs, while
increasing emphasis on measuring and reporting
environmental improvements. Second, Performance
Partnership Grants (PPGs) will continue to allow
states and tribes funding flexibility to combine
categorical program grants to address environmental
priorities.
HIGHLIGHTS:
State & Local Air Quality Management, Radon, and
Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$247.8 million for Air State and Local Assistance
grants to support state, local, and Tribal air programs
as well as radon programs. State and Local Air
Quality Management grant funding is requested in
the amount of $228.6 million. These funds provide
resources to state and local air pollution control
agencies for the development and implementation of
programs for the prevention and control of air
pollution or for the implementation of national
primary and secondary ambient air standards. They
can also be used to support certain research and
development and related activities. Tribal Air
Quality Management grants, requested in the amount
of $11.1 million, provide funds to Tribes to develop
and implement air pollution prevention and control
programs, or to implement national primary and
secondary ambient air standards. Lastly, the
President's Budget includes $8.2 million for Radon
grants, to provide funding for state radon programs.
Pesticide Enforcement, Toxics Substance
Compliance, and Sector Program Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$27.3 million to build environmental partnerships
with states and tribes and to strengthen their ability to
address environmental and public health threats. The
SA-14
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
enforcement state grants request consists of $19.9
million for Pesticides Enforcement, $5.15 million for
Toxic Substances Enforcement Grants, and $2.25
million for Sector Grants. State and Tribal
enforcement grants will be awarded to assist in the
implementation of compliance and enforcement
provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These grants support state
and Tribal compliance activities to protect the
environment from harmful chemicals and pesticides.
Under the Pesticides Enforcement Grant
program, EPA provides resources to states and Indian
tribes to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections and
take appropriate enforcement actions and implement
programs for farm worker protection. Under the
Toxic Substances Compliance Grant program, states
receive funding for compliance inspections of
asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
for implementation of the state lead abatement
enforcement program. The funds will complement
other Federal program grants for building state
capacity for lead abatement, and enhancing
compliance with disclosure, certification and training
requirements.
Pesticides Program Implementation Grants
The President's FY 2005 budget includes
$13.1 million for Pesticides Program Implementation
grants. These resources will assist states and tribes in
implementing the safer use of pesticides, including:
worker protection; certification and training of
pesticide applicators; protection of endangered
species; tribal pesticide programs; integrated pest
management and environmental stewardship; and
protection of water from pesticide contamination.
Lead Grants
The President's FY 2005 budget includes
$13.7 million for Lead grants. This funding will
support the development of authorized programs in
both States and Tribes to prevent lead poisoning
through the training of workers who remove lead-
based paint, the accreditation of training programs,
the certification of contractors, and renovation
education programs. Another activity that this
funding will support is the collection of lead data to
determine the nature and extent of the lead problem
within an area.
Pollution Prevention Grants
The FY 2005 request includes $6.0 million
for Pollution Prevention grants. The grant program
provides technical assistance towards the
achievement of reduced pollution through source
reduction.
Environmental Information Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$25.0 million to continue a grant program, started in
2002, which provides states and tribes assistance to
develop the Exchange Network. This grant program
will support state and Tribal efforts to complete
necessary changes to their information management
systems to facilitate participation, and enhance state
information integration efforts. The Exchange
Network will improve environmental decision
making, improve data quality and accuracy, ensure
security of sensitive data, and reduce the burden on
those who provide and those who access information
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Grants
The President's FY 2005 budget includes
$37.9 million for Underground Storage Tank grants,
an increase of $26 million over 2004. The proposed
$26 million increase in state and tribal grants would
allow EPA to fund additional inspections of
underground storage tanks. More inspections will
ensure proper operation and maintenance of UST
systems to prevent future releases. This investment
more than triples the size of Federal assistance to
states and tribes for the UST program. States and
tribes will use these resources to ensure that UST
owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor
all regulated tanks and piping in accordance with
regulations, and also to develop programs with
sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to
operate in lieu of the Federal program.
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$106.4 million in funding for Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance grants. Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance grants are used for the
implementation of both the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste
management and minimization programs.
Brownfields Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$60.0 million, to continue the Brownfields grant
program that provides assistance to states and tribes
to develop and enhance their state and Tribal
response programs. This funding will help states and
tribes develop legislation, regulations, procedures,
and guidance, to establish or enhance the
SA-15
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
administrative and legal structure of their response
programs.
Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section
106) Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$222.4 million for Water Pollution Control grants, an
increase of $22.0 million over 2004. Of this increase,
$17.0 million will fund grants to states and tribes
under the water quality monitoring initiative to
support adoption of new comprehensive monitoring
strategies and the development of statistically valid
monitoring networks to help target activities and
determine water quality status and trends. The
remaining $5 million will assist states in the
implementation of the Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) programs and support issuance
of storm sewer permits.
Wetlands Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$20.0 million for Wetlands Program Grants. These
grant resources will be used to assist states and tribes
in protecting wetlands and waters not covered by the
Clean Water Act.
Public Water System Supervision Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$105.1 million for Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) grants. These grants provide 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.
Indian General Assistance Program Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$62.5 million for the Indian General Assistance
Program (GAP) to help Federally recognized tribes
and inter-tribal consortia develop, implement and
assume environmental programs.
Homeland Security Grants
In FY 2005, the President's Budget includes
$5.0 million for homeland security grants to support
states' efforts to work with drinking water and
waste water systems to develop and enhance
emergency operations plans; conduct training in the
implementation of remedial plans in small systems;
and, develop detection, monitoring and treatment
technology to enhance drinking water and wastewater
security.
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements Grants
The FY 2005 President's Budget includes
$20.5 million for Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements grants, an increase of $1.5 million over
2004. This increase will fund a new technical
assistance and demonstration grants program to show
municipalities innovative ways of managing
infrastructure. Through the Water Quality
Cooperative Agreement program, the Agency
continues to support the creation of unique and
innovative approaches to address requirements of the
NPDES program, with special emphasis on wet
weather activities. In addition, this grant program
has long supported other programmatic activities
such as sustainable management systems for water
pollution control and various other program
innovations.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grants
The FY 2005 President's Budget includes
$11.0 million for the Underground Injection Control
grants program. Ensuring safe underground injection
of waste materials is a fundamental component of a
comprehensive source water protection program.
Grants are provided to states that have primary
enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and
maintain UIC programs.
Targeted Watershed Grants
The President's FY 2005 Budget funds
Targeted Watershed grants at $25 million, an increase of
$5 million over to help municipalities meet
requirements for nutrient loading reductions. The
program supports competitive grants to watershed
stakeholders ready to undertake immediate action to
improve water quality, and to improve watershed
protection measures with tools, training and technical
assistance. Special emphasis will be given to projects
that promote water quality trading opportunities to
more efficiently achieve water quality benefits
through market-based approaches.
State and Tribal Performance Fund
The President's FY 2005 Budget includes
$23 million for a new performance grants program
that will be available to states and tribes on a
competitive basis for all activities eligible for
categorical grant assistance. The award process will
be performance-focused, with winners selected on the
basis of environmental and/or public health
outcomes. This will encourage development of
projects with tangible, performance-based
SA-16
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
environmental and health outcomes that can be
models for implementation across the nation..
Wastewater Operator Training Grants
The President's FY 2005 Budget includes
$1.5 million as a transfer from EPM to STAG to
better align its budget with its performance goals and
reflect the environmental partnerships supported by
these funds. States and state universities receive
funding to provide technical assistance for
municipally owned wastewater treatment plants.
Elimination of Tribal Cap on Non-Point
Sources
In 2005, the President's Budget eliminates
the statutory one-third-of-one-percent cap on Clean
Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution
grants that may be awarded to tribes. Tribes applying
for and receiving Section 319 grants have steadily
increased from two in 1991 to over 70 in 2001. This
proposal recognizes the increasing demand for
resources to address Tribal nonpoint source program
needs.
SA-17
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
CATEGORIAL PROGRAM GRANTS (STAG)
by National Program
and State Grant
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant
Air & Radiation
State and Local Assistance
Tribal Assistance
Radon
Water Quality
Pollution Control (Section 106)
Beaches Protection
Nonpoint Source (Section 319)
Wetlands Program Development
Water Quality Cooperative Agrmts
Targeted Watersheds
Wastewater Operator Training Grants
Drinking Water
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Homeland Security
Hazardous Waste
H.W. Financial Assistance
Brownfields
Underground Storage Tanks
Pesticides & Toxics
Pesticides Program Implementation
Lead
Toxic Substances Compliance
Pesticides Enforcement
Multimedia
Environmental Information
Pollution Prevention
Sector Program
Indian General Assistance Program
State and Tribal Performance Fund
TOTALS
FY2004
President's
Budget
$228,550.0
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$247,750.0
$200,400.0
$10,000.0
$238,500.0
$20,000.0
$19,000.0
$20,000.0
$0.0
$507,900.0
$105,100.0
$11,000.0
$5,000.0
$121,100.0
$106,400.0
$60,000.0
$11,950.0
$178,350.0
$13,100.0
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
$51,850.0
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
$62,500.0
$0.0
$95,750.0
FY 2005
President's
Budget
$228,550.0
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$247,750.0
$222,400.0
$10,000.0
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$20,500.0
$25,000.0
$1,500.0
$508,500.0
$105,100.0
$11,000.0
$5,000.0
$121,100.0
$106,400.0
$60,000.0
$37,950.0
$204,350.0
$13,100.0
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
$51,850.0
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
$2,250.0
$62,500.0
$23,000.0
$118,750.0
$1,202,700.0 $1,252,300.0
Difference
FY2005v
FY 2004
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,000.0
$0.0
($29,400.0)
$0.0
$1,500.0
$5,000.0
$1,500.0
$600.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$26,000.0
$26,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23,000.0
$23,000.0
$26,250.0
SA-18
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
FY 2005 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
Clean Air Act,
§103
Clean Air Act,
§103
Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control
agencies as
defined in
section 302(b)
oftheCAA.
Multi-
jurisdictional
organizations
(non-profit
organizations
whose boards
of directors or
membership is
made up of
CAA section
302(b) agency
officers and
Tribal
representatives
and whose
mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of
the states).
Eligible Uses
S/L monitoring
and data
collection
activities in
support of the
establishment of
aPM15
monitoring
network and
associated
program costs.
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
addressing
regional haze.
FY2004
Request
$42,500.0
$10,000.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obi 1
V_/U| . 1
Goal 1,
Ohi 1
J •
FY2005
Request
$42,500.0
$10,000.0
SA-19
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103,
105, 106
Eligible
Recipients*
Air pollution
control
agencies as
defined in
section 302(b)
oftheCAA;
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 1 84
NOTE: only
the Ozone
Transport
Commission is
eligible as of
2/1/99
Eligible Uses
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs;
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA; Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b) air
pollution control
agency staff;
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
control interstate
air pollution.
FY2004
Request
$176,050.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obi. 1
FY2005
Request
$176,050.0
SA-20
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
Radon
Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Air Act,
Sections 103 and
105; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts
Toxic Substances
Control Act,
Sections 10 and
306; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended, §106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/Tribal
college or
university.
State
Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia, and
Interstate
Agencies
Eligible Uses
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.
FY2004
Request
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$200,400.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obj. 1
Goal 1,
Obi 9
V_/U| . Z<
Goal 2,
/~\1_ • /•)
Obj. 2
FY2005
Request
$11,050.0
$8,150.0
$222,400.0
SA-21
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)
Wetlands
Program
Development
Water Quality
Cooperative
Agreements
Targeted
Watershed
Grants
Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
§319(h);TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
§104(b)(3);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
§104(b)(3);Safe
Drinking Water
Act, §1442; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended, FY05
Appropriations
Act
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Non-
Profit
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Interstate
Organizations
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, and
Non-Profit
Organizations
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.
Creation of
unique and
innovative
approaches to
pollution control
and prevention
requirements
associated with
wet weather
activities, AFOs,
TMDLs, source
water protection,
watersheds; and
sustainable
infrastructure
management for
both wastewater
and drinking
water systems.
Assistance for
watersheds to
expand and
improve existing
watershed
protection
efforts.
FY2004
Request
$238,500.0
$20,000.0
$19,000.0
$20,000.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obi 9
V_/U| . Z<
Goal 4,
Obj. 3
Goal 2,
Obj. 1 and
Obj. 2
Goal 4,
Obj. 3
FY2005
Request
$209,100.0
$20,000.0
$20,500.0
$25,000.0
SA-22
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
Homeland
Security Grants
Underground
Injection Control
[UIC]
Beaches
Protection
Statutory
Authorities
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
§1443(a); TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Safe Drinking
Water Act,
1442; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Safe Drinking
Water Act, §
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Beaches
Environmental
Assessment and
Coastal Health
Act of 2000;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
and Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Local
Governments
Eligible Uses
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.
To assist States
and Tribes in
coordinating
their water
security activities
with other
homeland
security efforts.
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
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.
FY2004
Request
$105,100.0
$5,000.0
$11,000.0
$10,000.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
Obi 1
V_/U| . 1
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
Goal 2,
Obj. 1
FY2005
Request
$105,100.0
$5,000.0
$11,000.0
$10,000.0
SA-23
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Wastewater
Operator
Training Grants
Hazardous Waste
Financial
Assistance
Brownfields
Statutory
Authorities
Clean Water Act;
Section 104(g)(l)
Resource
Conservation
Recovery Act,
§3011;
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and Liability Act
of 1980, as
amended,
Section 128
Eligible
Recipients*
State Agencies
and
educational
institutions
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
To fund
programs for the
development of
training/
retraining of
people in the
fields of
operation,
maintenance and
security of
wastewater
treatment works
and related
activities to
maintain the
effectiveness of
systems.
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.
FY2004
Request
$1,500.0 in
the EPM
account
$106,400.0
$180,500.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2, Obj.
2
Goal 3,
Obj. 1
Obj.2
Goal 4,
Obj. 2
FY2005
Request
$1,500.0 in
the STAG
account
$106,400.0
$180,500.0
SA-24
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
[UST]
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
Resource
Conservation
Recovery Act
Sections 8001
and 2007(f) and
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
The Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
§ 20 & 23; the
FY 1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
State, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes
and Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Demonstration
Grants,
Inspections,
Surveys and
Training;
Develop &
implement UST
program.
Assist states and
tribes to develop
and implement
pesticide
programs,
including
programs that
protect workers,
ground-water,
and endangered
species from
pesticide risks ,
and other
pesticide
management
programs
designated by the
Administrator;
develop and
implement
programs for
certification and
training of
pesticide
applicators;
develop
Integrated
Pesticides
Management
(IPM) programs;
support
pesticides
education,
outreach, and
sampling efforts
for tribes.
FY2004
Request
$11,950.0
$13,100.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal3
Obi 1
V_/U| . 1
Goal 2,
OKi 1
UDJ. 1
Goal 4,
Obi 1
V_/U| . 1
FY2005
Request
$37,950.0
$13,100.0
SA-25
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Lead
Toxic Substances
Compliance
Pesticide
Enforcement
Statutory
Authorities
Toxic Substances
Control Act,
§ 404 (g); TSCA
10; FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Toxic Substances
Control Act,
§28(a) and 404
(g); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FIFRA
§23(a)(l);FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
To support and
assist states and
tribes to develop
and carry out
authorized state
lead abatement
certification,
training and
accreditation
programs; and to
assist tribes in
development of
lead programs.
Assist in
developing and
implementing
toxic substances
enforcement
programs for
PCBs, asbestos,
and lead-based
paint.
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs.
FY2004
Request
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
FY2005
Request
$13,700.0
$5,150.0
$19,900.0
SA-26
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")
Pollution
Prevention
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act,
Sec. 6605; FY
2002
Appropriations
Act and FY 2003
Appropriations
Acts.
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, §6605;
TSCA 10;
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients*
States, tribes,
interstate
agencies, tribal
consortium,
and other
agencies with
related
environmental
information
activities.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Assists states and
others to better
integrate
environmental
information
systems, better
enable data-
sharing across
programs, and
improve access
to information.
To assist state
and tribal
programs to
promote the use
of source
reduction
techniques by
businesses and to
promote other
Pollution
Prevention
activities at the
state and tribal
levels.
FY2004
Request
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4
Obj.2
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
FY2005
Request
$25,000.0
$6,000.0
SA-27
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Grant Title
Sector Program
(previously
Enforcement &
Compliance
Assurance)
Indian General
Assistance
Program
State and Tribal
Performance
Fund
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
Clean Air Act,
Sec. 103; Clean
Water Act, Sec.
104; Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
Sec. 8001;
FIFRA, Sec 20;
TSCA, Sec. 10
and 28; Marine
Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act,
Sec. 203; Safe
Drinking Water
Act, Sec. 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
ProgramAct of
1992, as
amended; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FY 2005
President's
Budget
Eligible
Recipients*
State,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Multi-
jurisdictional
Organizations
Tribal
Governments
and Intertribal
Consortia
State and
Tribal
Governments
Eligible Uses
Assist in
developing
innovative
sector-based,
multi-media, or
single -media
approaches to
enforcement and
compliance
assurance
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
Projects with
performance-
based
environmental
and public health
outcomes
FY2004
Request
$2,250.0
$62,500.0
$0.0
FY 2005
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obi 1
V_/U| . 1
Goal 5,
.
Obj. 3
Goal 5,
Obj.2
FY2005
Request
$2,250.0
$62,500.0
$23,000.0
* The Recipients listed in this column reflect assumptions in the FY 2005 Budget Request in terms of expected and/or anticipated
eligible recipients.
SA-28
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
INFRASTRUCTURE / STAG PROJECTS FINANCING
(Dollars in millions)
Infrastructure Financing
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
STAG Projects
Brownfields Environmental Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Mexico Border Projects
Alaska Native Villages
Targeted Projects - Puerto Rico
Total
FY 2004
President's Budget
$850.0
$850.0
$120.5
$0.0
$50.0
$40.0
$8.0
$1,918.5
FY 2005
President's Budget
$850.0
$850.0
$120.5
$65.0
$50.0
$40.0
$4.0
$1,979.5
Infrastructure and Special Projects Funds
The President's Budget includes a total of
$1,979.5 million in 2005 for EPA's Infrastructure
programs. Of the total infrastructure request, $1,744
million will support EPA's Goal 2: Clean and Safe
Water, $170.5 million will support EPA's Goal 4:
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems.
Infrastructure funding under the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) appropriation
provides financial assistance to states, municipalities
and Tribal governments to fund a variety of drinking
water, wastewater, air and Brownfields
environmental projects. These funds are essential to
fulfill the Federal government's commitment to help
our state, Tribal and local partners obtain adequate
funding to construct the facilities required to comply
with Federal environmental requirements and ensure
public health and revitalize contaminated properties.
Providing STAG funds to capitalize State
Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, EPA works in
partnership with the states to provide low-cost loans
to municipalities for infrastructure construction. As
set-asides of the SRF programs, grants are available
to Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages for
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs
based on national priority lists. The Brownfields
Environmental Program provides states, tribes,
political subdivisions (including cities, towns, and
counties) the necessary tools, information, and
strategies for promoting a unified approach to
environmental assessment cleanup, characterization,
and redevelopment at sites contaminated with
hazardous wastes and petroleum contaminants.
The resources included in this budget will
enable the Agency, in conjunction with EPA's state,
local, and Tribal partners, to achieve several
important goals for 2005. Some of these goals
include:
94 percent of the population served by
community water systems will receive
drinking water meeting all health-based
standards with compliance dates of
December 2001 or earlier.
Award 126 assessment grants under
the Brownfields program, bringing
the cumulative total grants awarded
to 806 by the end of FY 2005
paving the way for productive
reuse of these properties. This will
bring the total number of sites
assessed to 6,800 while leveraging
a total of $7.5 billion in cleanup
and redevelopment funds since
1995.
SA-29
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE
Clean School Bus USA Initiative
In FY 2005, EPA will receive $65 million to
retrofit school buses, a significant source of
emissions that can cause health hazards in children.
EPA began the Clean School Bus USA pilot program
in April 2003 to provide schools and school districts
cost-share grants to reduce diesel emissions from
school buses. More than 24 million children that ride
buses to school are at risk of exposure to high levels
of diesel exhaust. Idling school buses can also
compromise air quality around buses, including
sidewalks, schoolyards, playgrounds, and even inside
nearby buildings. By adopting better idling practices,
retrofitting buses with modern emission control
technology, using cleaner fuels and replacing older
school buses, we have the potential of reducing PM
emissions by more than 90 percent, helping to put
tomorrow's cleaner buses on the road today.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Capitalizing Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds
The Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund programs demonstrate a true
partnership between states, localities and the Federal
government. These programs provide Federal
financial assistance to states, localities, and Tribal
governments to protect the nation's water resources
by providing funds for the construction of drinking
water and wastewater treatment facilities. The state
revolving funds are two important elements of the
nation's substantial investment in sewage treatment
and drinking water systems which provides
Americans with significant benefits in the form of
reduced water pollution and safe drinking water.
EPA will continue to capitalize the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Through
this program, the Federal government provides
financial assistance for wastewater and other water
projects, including nonpoint source, estuary,
stormwater, and sewer overflow projects. Water
infrastructure projects contribute to direct ecosystem
improvements by lowering the amount of nutrients
and toxic pollutants in all types of surface waters.
The President's Budget includes funding the
CWSRF at $850 million each year through 2011.
More than $20 billion has already been provided to
capitalize the CWSRF, over twice the original Clean
Water Act authorized level of $8.4 billion. Total
CWSRF funding available for loans since 1987,
reflecting loan repayments, state match dollars, and
other funding sources, is approximately $47 billion,
of which more than $43.5 billion has been provided
to communities as financial assistance.
The dramatic progress made in improving
the quality of wastewater treatment since the 1970s is
a national success. In 1972, only 84 million people
were served by secondary or advanced wastewater
treatment facilities. Today, 99 percent of community
wastewater treatment plants, serving 181 million
people, use secondary treatment or better.
The DWSRF will be self-sustaining in the
long run and will help offset the costs of ensuring
safe drinking water supplies and assisting small
communities in meeting their responsibilities. As
noted in the May 2003 Report to Congress, since its
inception in 1997, the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program has made
available $5.2 billion to finance 1,900 infrastructure
improvement projects nationwide, with a return of
$1.60 for every $1 of federal funds invested.
State Flexibility between SRFs: The Agency
requests continuation of authority provided in the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments which allows states to transfer an
amount equal to 33 percent of their DWSRF grants to
their CWSRF programs, or an equivalent amount
from their CWSRF program to their DWSRF
program. The transfer provision gives states
flexibility to address the most critical demands in
either program at a given time. The statutory transfer
provision expired September 30, 2002.
Set-Asides for Tribes: To improve public health and
water quality in Indian Country, the Agency will
continue the 1 1/2% set-aside of the CWSRF for
wastewater grants to tribes as provided in the
Agency's 2002 appropriation. More than 70,000
homes in Indian country have inadequate or
nonexistent wastewater treatment. EPA and the
Indian Health Service estimate that Tribal wastewater
infrastructure needs exceed $650.0 million.
Alaska Native Villages
The President's Budget includes $40.0
million for Alaska native villages for the construction
of wastewater and drinking water facilities to address
serious sanitation problems. EPA will continue to
work with the Department of Health and Human
Services' Indian Health Service, the State of Alaska,
SA-30
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
and local communities to provide needed financial
and technical assistance.
Puerto Rico
The President's Budget includes $4 million
for the design of upgrades to Metropolitano's Sergio
Cuevas treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
When all upgrades are complete, EPA estimates that
about 1.4 million people will enjoy safer, cleaner
drinking water.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND
ECOSYSTEMS
Brownfields Environmental Projects
The President's Budget includes a total of
$120.5 million for brownfields environmental
projects. EPA will award grants for assessment
activities, cleanup, and Brownfields cleanup
revolving loan funds (BCRLF). Additionally, this
includes cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum
or petroleum products and environmental job training
grants.
Mexico Border
The President's Budget includes a total of
$50.0 million for water infrastructure projects along
the U.S./Mexico Border. The goal of this program is
to reduce environmental and human health risks
along the U.S./Mexico Border. The communities
along both sides of the Border are facing unusual
human health and environmental threats because of
the lack of adequate wastewater and drinking water
facilities. EPA's U.S./Mexico Border program
provides funds to support the planning, design and
construction of high priority water and wastewater
treatment projects along the U.S./Mexico Border.
The Agency's FY 2005 goal is to have a cumulative
total of 1.5 million people in the Mexico border area
protected from health risks because of adequate water
and wastewater sanitation systems funded.
SA-31
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Acquisition Management
Acquisition Management
Acquisition Management
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG)
Beach / Fish Programs
Brownfields
Brownfields
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: Nonpoint Source
(Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Appropriation
EPM
SUPERFUND
LUST
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
IG
SUPERFUND
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
FY 2003
Actuals
$24,061.8
$16,452.8
$226.3
$4,464.4
$877.9
$0.0
$12,110.4
$34,502.5
($6.5)
$3,197.3
$20,635.1
$1,978.3
$7,473.3
$48,605.7
$18,514.0
$104,940.8
$4,508.5
$15,137.6
$228,776.9
$20,341.8
$13,165.5
$193,648.9
$5,360.4
$92,694.2
$9,415.3
$12,940.0
$5,229.8
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$25,227.6
$16,417.8
$200.9
$4,705.1
$1,153.4
$0.0
$13,213.6
$36,807.7
$0.0
$3,689.5
$27,820.6
$0.0
$10,000.0
$60,000.0
$25,000.0
$106,400.0
$5,000.0
$13,700.0
$238,500.0
$19,900.0
$13,100.0
$200,400.0
$6,000.0
$105,100.0
$8,150.0
$20,000.0
$5,150.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$24,264.3
$19,028.5
$366.7
$4,929.3
$1,014.9
$874.7
$13,138.6
$37,997.0
$0.0
$3,237.6
$28,002.3
$0.0
$10,000.0
$60,000.0
$25,000.0
$106,400.0
$5,000.0
$13,700.0
$209,100.0
$19,900.0
$13,100.0
$222,400.0
$6,000.0
$105,100.0
$8,150.0
$25,000.0
$5,150.0
SA-32
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
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
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: State and Tribal
Performance Fund
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Appropriation
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
EPM
SUPERFUND
LUST
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
OIL
EPM
EPM
S&T
EPM
S&T
EPM
EPM
LUST
OIL
FY 2003
Actuals
$56,577.4
$10,465.7
$11,655.8
$0.0
$18,155.7
$14,206.2
$2,609.9
$229,633.4
$0.0
$13,483.1
$55,931.3
$18,303.9
$654.2
$3,737.1
$100,780.1
$133.2
$1,423.1
$8,491.7
$15,520.7
$4,189.4
$82,169.5
$19,588.0
$4,374.0
$24,786.3
$401.9
$198.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$62,500.0
$11,000.0
$11,950.0
$0.0
$19,000.0
$20,000.0
$2,250.0
$228,550.0
$0.0
$11,050.0
$62,043.4
$23,150.4
$949.6
$7,080.4
$108,751.1
$142.7
$1,588.2
$12,113.8
$16,453.2
$9,352.9
$91,289.6
$17,320.3
$3,937.8
$27,205.8
$586.5
$279.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$62,500.0
$11,000.0
$37,950.0
$1,500.0
$20,500.0
$20,000.0
$2,250.0
$228,550.0
$23,000.0
$11,050.0
$64,486.8
$21,218.1
$950.4
$7,121.3
$113,395.4
$142.0
$1,628.7
$12,414.2
$17,495.8
$9,352.9
$91,961.3
$17,458.9
$3,948.8
$27,759.1
$585.3
$276.6
SA-33
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Criminal Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Drinking Water Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Endocrine Disrupters
Enforcement Training
Enforcement Training
Environment and Trade
Environmental Education
Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice
Exchange Network
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
SUPERFUND
STAG
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
S&T
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
SUPERFUND
B&F
EPM
SUPERFUND
LUST
OIL
S&T
EPM
EPM
$268.0
$9,185.2
$403.8
$56,567.5
$54,010.1
$138.2
$79,980.2
$28.9
$274,231.1
$44,613.9
$30,874.4
$9,574.1
$83,373.3
$2,746.4
$7,075.1
$3,797.0
$864.5
$1,769.6
$5,281.0
$3,721.6
$770.6
$18,806.4
$2,476.0
$28,204.9
$284,373.5
$61,632.5
$1,036.7
$503.6
$9,249.6
$19,120.1
$83,423.5
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$9,081.2
$176.0
$58,155.0
$47,267.7
$184.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$30,276.1
$7,800.7
$96,132.8
$2,952.7
$9,002.7
$3,283.9
$754.7
$1,702.6
$0.0
$4,144.3
$900.0
$30,370.2
$2,925.1
$31,418.0
$313,311.4
$63,837.8
$1,053.1
$504.4
$8,715.8
$23,702.2
$87,004.8
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$0.0
$9,195.1
$175.6
$62,216.7
$48,366.0
$184.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$31,370.0
$8,535.7
$97,947.9
$2,999.7
$9,037.3
$3,302.4
$755.7
$1,723.1
$0.0
$4,230.5
$900.0
$25,419.7
$2,342.5
$31,418.0
$326,793.8
$70,981.9
$883.9
$504.4
$8,715.8
$24,302.0
$93,283.6
SA-34
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Forensics Support
Forensics Support
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Homeland Sep.nritv Protection of EPA
S&T
EPM
S&T
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
S&T
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
S&T
B&F
EPM
SUPERFUND
$9,950.6
$27,092.6
$1,426.0
$55,525.5
$15,073.7
$2,718.5
$3,264.7
$11,581.2
$21,755.2
$16,810.7
$4,383.0
$2,666.6
$2,225.5
$5,731.7
$0.0
$874.0
$3,820.0
$361.1
$14,186.4
$688.8
$66,237.6
$3,273.7
$10,281.4
$23,719.6
$0.0
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$10,033.3
$26,498.2
$2,560.0
$60,446.8
$17,373.8
$2,939.6
$5,695.9
$12,562.5
$20,777.7
$18,104.2
$4,431.7
$954.8
$477.4
$4,762.5
$15,000.0
$3,820.3
$6,844.2
$770.7
$24,782.3
$1,827.4
$35,625.2
$24,917.6
$11,500.0
$6,288.0
$600.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$10,048.7
$25,181.2
$2,582.9
$64,466.5
$20,328.9
$2,933.2
$4,189.3
$12,721.5
$20,816.6
$21,194.8
$4,477.8
$954.8
$477.4
$6,789.7
$45,000.0
$4,320.3
$6,840.8
$852.6
$3,515.6
$1,839.8
$29,163.2
$25,396.0
$11,500.0
$6,344.3
$600.0
SA-35
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
Personnel and Infrastructure
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
Human Health Risk Assessment
Human Resources Management
Human Resources Management
Human Resources Management
Indoor Air: Asthma Program
Indoor Air: Environment Tobacco
Smoke Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace
Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace
Program
Information Security
Information Security
Information Security
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Brownfields
Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean School
Bus Initiative
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean School
Bus Initiative
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water
SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
International Capacity Building
IT / Data Management
IT / Data Management
S&T
SUPERFUND
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
LUST
EPM
EPM
EPM
S&T
EPM
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
S&T
STAG
STAG
EPM
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
$5,967.1
$1,796.4
$25,739.6
$39,536.6
$6,955.1
$0.0
$9,062.6
$2,832.8
$5,376.3
$467.3
$7,955.7
$1,049.5
$19,594.1
$1,948.9
($26.8)
$41,810.6
$81,953.4
$0.0
$0.0
$1,386,537.4
$866,607.7
$113,426.6
$0.0
$11,774.0
$88,443.9
$16,381.7
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$2,100.0
$3,916.9
$32,578.1
$42,384.6
$6,803.4
$3.0
$11,097.0
$3,617.5
$5,492.2
$378.9
$10,320.2
$856.0
$13,337.4
$0.0
$0.0
$40,000.0
$120,500.0
$1,500.0
$0.0
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
$50,000.0
$8,000.0
$6,176.9
$116,081.7
$17,459.0
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,100.0
$3,951.8
$32,880.4
$44,139.5
$4,410.6
$3.0
$11,197.3
$3,695.1
$5,667.1
$398.5
$10,352.1
$906.1
$4,188.3
$508.9
$0.0
$40,000.0
$120,500.0
$0.0
$65,000.0
$850,000.0
$850,000.0
$50,000.0
$4,000.0
$6,854.0
$133,182.4
$18,067.3
SA-36
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
IT / Data Management
IT / Data Management
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
LUST/UST
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Marine Pollution
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways
NEPA Implementation
Offsetting Receipts
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
Pesticides: Field Programs
Pesticides: Registration of New
Pesticides
Pesticides: Registration of New
Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of
Existing Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of
Existing Pesticides
Pollution Prevention Program
POPs Implementation
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Radiation: Response Preparedness
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Management
LUST
OIL
S&T
EPM
SUPERFUND
EPM
EPM
LUST
EPM
LUST
EPM
EPM
EPM
Offsetting
Receipts
OIL
EPM
EPM
S&T
EPM
S&T
EPM
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
S&T
EPM
S&T
EPM
EPM
$52.2
$37.7
$3,527.6
$33,132.3
$781.4
$8,871.3
$6,770.6
$12,645.8
$10.8
$55,787.9
$7,070.0
$22,712.0
$11,204.2
$0.0
$12,543.8
$21,120.5
$40,362.9
$2,096.0
$48,487.3
$2,434.7
$15,450.3
$2,090.9
$11,111.8
$2,138.0
$3,860.4
$3,009.5
$1,119.3
$36,816.6
$59,706.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$143.7
$23.8
$4,057.8
$33,879.1
$843.8
$12,240.9
$7,144.2
$10,581.0
$0.0
$58,399.1
$12,049.9
$19,094.2
$12,315.4
($4,000.0)
$12,897.5
$25,757.7
$33,699.0
$2,282.6
$61,933.8
$2,380.6
$17,098.7
$2,224.4
$12,443.4
$2,336.5
$4,084.9
$2,401.0
$1,680.2
$40,363.8
$67,381.6
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$177.6
$32.8
$4,821.4
$34,678.8
$844.0
$12,521.7
$7,094.5
$10,499.6
$0.0
$58,450.0
$12,296.0
$19,229.3
$12,654.2
($30,000.0)
$13,064.7
$27,185.9
$42,907.0
$2,403.2
$58,053.9
$2,417.1
$22,496.2
$2,235.4
$11,811.7
$2,323.2
$2,847.0
$2,610.9
$2,239.0
$40,975.6
$67,422.3
SA-37
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
RCRA: Waste Minimization &
Recycling
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Regulatory Innovation
Regulatory /Economic -Management and
Analysis
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV)
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Pollution Prevention
Research: Pollution Prevention
Research: SITE Program
Research: Troposphere Ozone
Research: Water Quality
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Fellowships
Research: Global Change
Science Advisory Board
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Small Business Ombudsman
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
SUPERFUND
S&T
SUPERFUND
LUST
OIL
S&T
S&T
S&T
SUPERFUND
S&T
SUPERFUND
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
S&T
EPM
EPM
EPM
$15,433.3
$6,855.9
$2,840.1
$14,082.3
$21,261.8
$14,257.2
$43,253.7
$13,161.9
$2,619.0
$1.8
$163,548.9
$14,190.3
$607.8
$875.9
$9,448.8
$64,437.9
$32,664.7
$408.9
$31,095.2
$4,781.1
$4,804.2
$46,934.1
$5,436.9
$2,040.8
$22,354.9
$3,748.7
$850.2
$3,048.6
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$12,771.6
$8,755.7
$3,609.2
$21,931.7
$18,468.6
$15,700.9
$46,053.4
$12,984.7
$4,011.8
$0.0
$190,730.8
$24,960.5
$628.5
$915.0
$10,064.5
$63,620.6
$36,784.8
$593.0
$38,405.6
$6,941.1
$4,942.3
$47,178.5
$8,948.6
$6,402.8
$21,528.6
$4,409.0
$1,603.8
$3,764.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$14,301.7
$8,799.5
$3,626.2
$21,992.2
$18,551.8
$17,638.9
$46,118.1
$8,044.0
$2,996.8
$0.0
$177,407.5
$22,671.1
$628.5
$917.8
$8,841.9
$63,690.8
$29,017.7
$593.0
$33,467.5
$6,927.7
$4,900.9
$46,809.8
$13,028.7
$8,261.6
$20,689.6
$4,757.1
$1,707.2
$3,838.7
SA-38
-------
U.SEnvironmental Protection Agency
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM PROJECTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2003
Program Project Appropriation Actuals
Small Minority Business Assistance
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
SUPERFUND: Emergency Response
and Removal
SUPERFUND: Enforcement
SUPERFUND: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
SUPERFUND: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
SUPERFUND: Federal Facilities
SUPERFUND: Federal Facilities lAGs
SUPERFUND: Remedial
SUPERFUND: Support to Other Federal
Agencies
Surface Water Protection
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
TRI / Right to Know
TRI / Right to Know
Tribal - Capacity Building
US Mexico Border
Wetlands
EPM
EPM
EPM
EPM
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
EPM
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND
EPM
EPM
Credit Subsidy
Re -estimate
EPM
EPM
EPM
S&T
EPM
EPM
EPM
$2,105.8
$10,273.0
$5,994.8
$9,518.9
$217,880.1
$158,487.3
($0.2)
$17,927.0
$28,838.1
$6,749.0
$656,387.4
$10,178.8
$169,838.6
$10,464.4
$905.5
$41,306.9
$11,263.0
$14,490.6
$197.0
$9,555.8
$4,967.7
$17,129.2
FY 2004
Pres. Bud.
$2,214.5
$12,508.1
$5,786.6
$11,000.0
$199,803.9
$155,307.5
$0.0
$10,130.1
$32,744.2
$10,022.6
$732,042.6
$10,676.0
$190,234.5
$9,243.1
$0.0
$45,536.2
$14,832.9
$14,609.2
$81.4
$10,494.1
$6,484.4
$19,299.9
FY 2005
Pres. Bud.
$2,282.0
$12,134.8
$5,839.6
$13,500.0
$201,088.0
$155,537.2
$0.0
$10,091.4
$32,182.0
$10,044.4
$725,483.8
$10,676.0
$191,796.6
$9,514.2
$0.0
$45,878.8
$11,082.6
$15,940.9
$0.0
$10,641.7
$5,784.8
$19,752.8
SA-39
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Recommendation j
Establish/outcome performanee measures
/ ' , '' ••" ' V ,-' * ' '*
y ^
Next Milestone
Risk Screening Env. Index: new analyses to refine
targets, e.g., use of GIS methods to better illustrate what
a completed cleanup means in various states.
Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
Comments on Status
In all LUST cleanups, a health or
environmental based outcome must be
achieved before the cleanup can be
considered complete.
Lead Official
Sammy Ng
/// ••"*•/'•
Establish efficiency measurest , '
/ / /
Next Milestone
Potential efficiency measure identified, further analysis
needed to verify or develop baselines/metrics
Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
Comments on Status
Currently developing measures of
national program efficiency, including
the creation of a baseline from which
future performance evaluations can be
based (FY 2004 and beyond).
Lead Official
Sammy Ng
AIR TOXICS
Recommendation
Increase funding for toxic air pollutant programs in the F Y *
2004' ''budget by/$? million in State grants for monitoring to -
help fill data gaps. ' / ^ . '
Next Milestone
Completion Date
04/01/04
Next Milestone Date
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Comments on Status
Requested funding provided by
Congress.
Lead Official
SA-40
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
2.
3.
Final funding level will be determined during the agency's
F Y 2004 operating plan development process.
Recommendation
Foqiis on maximizing programmatic net benefits and
minimizing the cost pjsr deleterious health effect avoided.
Next Milestone
Completion of remaining MACT standards
Recommendation
/ / ''//;" / <«»>'
/ /•
Establish 'bctter/pefforfn'anee'-measijres^ineluding an
;<4pprofjriate"effi0ietifi¥ me.ast£t:?)/ „*• ^
":, -x '» '/ ' / ^ '''y"^/' * ''"' " ^ /
x " ^
4
Next Milestone
Potential efficiency measures identified; further analysis
needed to develop measure.
04/01/04
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
02/29/04
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
07/01/04
Office of Air and
Radiation
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Air and
Radiation
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Air and
Radiation
Jerry Kurtzweg
Comments on Status
EPA will complete the remaining
MACT standards and continue work
on the residual risk program.
Lead Official
Jerry Kurtzweg
Comments on Status
Proposed efficiency measure
submitted to OMB in PART update.
For further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 1 Objective 1 section. For
further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 1 Objective 1 section.
Lead Official
Jerry Kurtzweg
SA-41
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
Recommendation
Develop an outeomj-biased, pffieieney measure that
ginal bftf eflt to tjje envixyhmisnt per
Completion Date
09/04/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Continue to work with state partners to improve efficiency
measure and develop actions based on OMB's 05
recommendations
Next Milestone Date
06/30/04
Lead Organization
Office of Water
Comments on Status
OMB approved revised long-term
performance measures but rejected
efficiency measure in 05 PART
reassessment. Program will work
with OMB to develop efficiency
measure. For further information
consult the Efficiency Measures /
Measure Development Plan
subsection within the Goal 2
Objective 2 section.
Lead Official
Mike Mason
SA-42
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
STJPERFUND/CERCLA REMOVAL/EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Recommendation
Completion Date
TBD
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Effectiveness measure developed for testing
Next Milestone Date
03/01/04
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Comments on Status
OSWER currently has a contractor
tasked with reviewing historical
Removal Action data to determine
what types of measures of
effectiveness of removals (such as
lives saved or protected, environment
protected, etc.) might be workable,
especially to show improvement
from one year to the next. For
further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 3 Objective 2 section.
Lead Official
Dana Stalcup
2.
Reeommeniflation
Establish ...efficiency measures;.
Completion Date
TBD
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Draft efficiency measure developed
Next Milestone Date
10/01/04
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Comments on Status
We have begun looking at ways to
categorize different types of
removals, based on things such as
size and complexity, to allow for
possible efficiency analyses. For
further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 3 Objective 2 section
Lead Official
Dana Stalcup
Recommendation
Completion Date
On Track? (Y/N)
Comments on Status
SA-43
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Increase Efforts in
''' >' ' '/
TBD
Y
Next Milestone
All relevant program offices participate in ongoing
Program Evaluation Network meetings and provide input
to the evaluation planning process.
Next Milestone Date
03/30/04
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
While the Superfund removal
program does not have a planned
regular, independent program
evaluation process, we have
conducted program reviews of recent
responses (such as the World Trade
Center and the Anthrax responses).
In addition, OSWER has recently
implemented an office-wide Program
Evaluation Team and Network to
foster increased program evaluation
efforts across all OSWER programs,
including the Superfund removal
program. Priorities for evaluation
will be based on the potential risks/
vulnerabilities posed by a program or
component thereof and the potential
improvement in operation and
efficiency that could be gained from
that evaluation.
Lead Official
Bruce Pumphrey
4.
'/ / ' /
Completion Date
TBD
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Comments on Status
While the Superfund Removal
program, by its emergency and
response orientation, does not have a
regular strategic planning process in
place, we have taken significant
programmatic action as a result of
lessons learned from the World
Trade Center and Anthrax responses.
The National Approach to Response
(NAR) was developed to deal with
many of the issues identified during
those responses. A national work
plan to implement the NAR has been
SA-44
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
issued which provides strategic
direction for the removal program
over the next several years.
Next Milestone
Complete WTC/Anthrax Lesson Learned
Implement National Approach to Response, and assess its
effectiveness
Next Milestone Date
Completed
03/30/04 and 10/31/04
Lead Organization
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Lead Official
Dana Stalcup
5.
Recommendation
^ *':'' *'^'-''''
Completion Date
TBD
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Next Milestone Date
Lead Organization
Comments on Status
We are currently collecting program
performance data via the Core ER,
and will continue to improve the data
collection and performance analysis
process over the next y ear. We have
taken significant programmatic
action as a result of lessons learned
from the World Trade Center and
Anthrax responses. The National
Approach to Response (NAR) was
developed to deal with many of the
issues identified during those
responses. A national work plan to
implement the NAR has been issued
which provides strategic direction for
the removal program over the next
several years.
Lead Official
SA-45
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
Complete WTC/Anthrax Lesson Learned
Implement National Approach to Response, and assess its
effectiveness
Completed
02/29/04
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Dana Stalcup
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
Recommendation
Completion Date
9/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
•for the pmgrfttL,
Next Milestone
Continue to develop efficiency measures
Next Milestone Date
06/01/04
Lead Organization
Office of Water
Comments on Status
OMB reassessment in F Y O5
approved revised performance
measures but rejected proposed
efficiency measures. The DW SRF
program will work with its state
partners in developing efficiency
measures. For further information
consult the Efficiency Measures /
Measure Development Plan
subsection within the Goal 2
Objective 1 section.
Lead Official
Mike Mason
SA-46
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
Recommendation
Improve long-tegn perfbfmanee m^asurf st. develop
baselines'and targets^ iniprove; ojitcgrtfe focus •
Next Milestone
Proceed with analysis of potential measures: analysis
funded; next step: complete analysis
Completion Date
ongoing
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
Revisions to long-term measures
made in new strategic plan;
additional measures under analysis.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
Recommendation
Improve long-term performance measures-: develop
baselines-tad targets; improve outeomtfjoeus
Next Milestone
One potential outcome measure/data set identified. Next
step: integrate into program operation.
Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
Revisions to long-term measures
made in new strategic plan;
additional measures under analysis.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
PESTICIDE REREGISTRATION
Recommendation
Improve, long-term perfQrm,pee;mf asurtjs: 4fwl?P
baselin-es'ind'ta'fgets;, iifrprd¥c outeompfof as. '
Next Milestone
Proceed with analysis of potential measures: analysis
funded; next step: complete analysis
Completion Date
Ongoing
Next Milestone Date
9/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
Revisions to long-term measures
made in new strategic plan;
additional measures under analysis.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
SA-47
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
NEW CHEMICALS
on
Esjablisji more 0iii
tfp,
Completion Date
9/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Annualized targets developed.
Next Milestone Date
06/30/04
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
Improved outcome and efficiency
measure in place but more work is
underway to develop/refine
annualized targets. OCFO/OPEI
funded project to improve efficiency
and outcome measures for New
Chemicals program this year. For
further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 4 Objective 1 section.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
Recommendation
Improvement of the program's strategic planning, including
' an independent fvaluatiofi of the program, whict ean result
in significant improvement of program results.
Next Milestone
Canadian peer review of PMN process and tools initiated in
'03
Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
FDA independent assessment
submitted
Lead Official
Carol Terris
2.
SA-48
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
EXISTING CHEMICALS
Establish, better
/
Monitor against
/'^co^i-fflisndatton
c/y ' / f /
sf r%rrfl,atK5e' njeafures
r '/
/
Next Milestone
revised targets
Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
Ongoing
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
RSEI analyses were shared with
OMB as part of the EPA Appeal to
the FY 2005 PART results. A new
long-term, ambitious target was
established for the RSEI goal and
annual targets reflect incremental
progress towards the longer-term
goal.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
Establish,effieie
#
,-4'"' '" -x •••"' •*'
Next Milestone
Three potential efficiency measures identified, further
analysis needed to verify or develop baselines/metrics
? Completion Date
09/30/04
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Comments on Status
Potential efficiency measures have
been developed but additional
program and trends analysis required.
Lead Official
Carol Terris
SA-49
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
AMERICAN INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Recommendation
Encourage EPA to develop ambitious perfcnjmanee targets
for its • annuaFand efficiency measure's'' *""'*''
•! * .,-•' »* * 'V .,- >-V >-•*€. ,€ ,-•
Completion Date
09/30/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Next Milestone
Work with tribal partners to develop more accurate targets.
Next Milestone Date
09/30/04
Lead Organization
Office of Water/American
Indian Environmental
Office
Comments on Status
OMB approved revised performance
measures in 05 PART reassessment.
Program rating moved from "results
not demonstrated" to "adequate."
For further information consult the
Efficiency Measures / Measure
Development Plan subsection within
the Goal 5 Objective 3 section.
Lead Official
Mike Mason
SA-50
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Asencv
FY 2005 Annual Plan
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
/Bsseoimiiiendatlon
x::y '/'•'/•''/'•
FunA'S? raijlioia in4he/FY 2004'tp%6t for, an improved
•iecanpliinBidita'sfsfeaSi/- / ' '" *' "V
/;/•/' ' '«f / / ^
Next Milestone
Final funding level will be determined during the agency's
FY 2004 operating plan development process.
Completion Date
9/31/03
Next Milestone Date
04/01/04
On Track? (Y/N)
Y
Lead Organization
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance
Comments on Status
Five million dollars for modernization
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) data
system was included in the President's
FY 2004 Budget. This is the second
phase of the compliance data system
modernization effort known as ICIS
(Integrated Compliance Information
System). Continued delay in passage
of EPA's FY 2004 appropriations bill
may delay efforts to modernize the
CWA data system.
Lead Official
Michael Stahl
SA-51
------- |